Skip to main content
Download PDF

Interaction of predatory macroinvertebrate communities with malaria vectors in aquatic habitats of three climatic zones in Burkina Faso

Parasites & Vectors volume 18, Article number: 158 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In aquatic larval habitats, Anopheles larvae are subject to the predatory activity and competition of macroinvertebrates. These macroinvertebrates may play a key role in the Anopheles population’s bioregulation in aquatic habitats and malaria control. There are few studies characterizing macroinvertebrate predators and other macroinvertebrates coexisting with Anopheles larvae in Burkina Faso. This study aimed at characterizing and evaluating the different interactions between anopheline mosquito larvae, predatory macroinvertebrates, and other co-habitants in aquatic habitats in the three climatic zones of Burkina Faso.

Methods

A larval survey was performed in the three climatic zones of Burkina Faso (Sahelian, Soudano-Sahelian, and Soudanian zones) from September to November 2022. Mosquito larvae and other macroinvertebrates were sampled using standard dippers or bucket, preserved in Falcon tubes containing 80% ethanol, and transported to the laboratory for morphological identification. Alpha diversity analysis was used to measure macroinvertebrate diversity according to climatic zones and correlation matrix analysis was performed to determine the different interactions between Anopheles and other macroinvertebrates in breeding sites.

Results

In the studied larval habitats, Anopheles were found with several aquatic macroinvertebrate predators and other cohabiting macroinvertebrates. The abundance and alpha diversity indices of macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrates varied significantly according to climatic zone (P = 0.01). Correlation analyses showed that in the Sahelian zone, Anopheles spp., Corixidae, and Notonectidae shared the same aquatic habitats. In the Soudano-Sahelian zone, Anopheles spp. occupied the same larval habitats with Belostomatidae, Notonectidae, and Achatinidae, and in the Soudanian zone, their presence in larval habitats was correlated with that of Beatidae.

Conclusions

This study showed a significant trophic association between Anopheles and predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates in larval habitats in Burkina Faso. Our study provides insights and thereby opens new avenues in terms of development of biological control against larvae of Anopheles populations in Burkina Faso.

Graphical abstract

Background

Up to the present day, mosquitoes remain a threat to human health due to their ability to transmit various infectious diseases such as malaria, one of the deadliest diseases in tropical regions. In many sub-Saharan countries, malaria remains a public health problem [1]. In Burkina Faso, more than 10 million cases of malaria were recorded in 2023 with around 5000 deaths, demonstrating the heavy burden still posed by malaria [2].

Vector control is an essential component of malaria control and elimination strategies. The main interventions that have contributed significantly to reducing the burden of malaria are the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS). These methods have contributed to reducing significantly the number of malaria cases and deaths worldwide in recent years, but unfortunately the continued spread of insecticide resistance in Anopheles mosquitoes threatens the global fight against malaria [3]. Consequently, malaria elimination may not be achieved unless additional tools are found and implemented [4].

Larval control, one of the approaches to vector control, has been neglected thus far in malaria vector control programs [1, 5]. Anopheles larvae generally develop in rain-dependent freshwater habitats [6,7,8]. Studies have shown that high larval mortality is common in natural breeding sites due to several parameters including climatic conditions and predation [9, 10]. In aquatic habitats, anopheline mosquito larvae cohabit with other macroinvertebrates and are susceptible to competition and predation. Anopheles larvae and their predators coexist in a variety of aquatic habitats and these predators may contribute to the bioregulation of vector species capable to transmit Plasmodium parasites causing malaria disease [11, 12].

The role of aquatic predators in controlling the anopheline mosquito larvae has been known for years, and studies indicate that 90% of the mortality of immature mosquito stages in certain aquatic environments is attributable to predators [13, 14]. The role played by aquatic predators as biocontrol agents in the natural regulation of mosquito larval and adult populations has not been well exploited in vector control. Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve larval source management by considering predatory macroinvertebrates as an evolutionary tool for integrated vector management programmes to reduce vector populations [15,16,17].

A good understanding of Anopheles larval ecology and their interactions with other macroinvertebrates in larval habitats is imperative for malaria control and could inform vector control strategies targeting larval habitats [17]. Studies performed in Burkina Faso showed that the exposure of anopheline mosquito larvae to predators in aquatic environment had an impact on development of larvae, adult size, fecundity, longevity, and choice of larval breeding sites [8, 18, 19]. However, there is little documented data characterizing predators that coexist with Anopheles spp. larvae in Burkina Faso. Hence, the aim of this study was to characterize the predatory macroinvertebrates and other coexisting macroinvertebrates associated with Anopheles mosquitoes’ larvae in breeding sites in the three climatic zones of Burkina Faso.

Methods

Study area

This study was carried out in the three climatic zones of Burkina Faso, namely the Sahelian, the Soudano-Sahelian, and the Soudanian zones (Fig. 1). Climate in Burkina Faso is tropical, of the Soudano Sahelian type, characterized by rainfall variations ranging from an average of 350 mm in the north to more than 1000 mm in the southwest. Burkina Faso has two very distinct seasons (rainy season and dry season). The rainy season lasts between 3 and 6 months (May–October) with rainfall ranging from 300 mm to 1200 mm, and dry season lasts around 6 months (November–April) marked by the harmattan, a hot and dry wind blowing from the Sahara. The country is subdivided according to average annual rainfall into three main climatic zones (Fig. 1). The Sahelian climatic zone located in the north part is characterized by rainfall ranging between 300 and 600 mm/year and high temperatures from 15 °C to 45 °C. In the Soudano-Sahelian in the center of country, the annual rainfall varies between 600 and 900 mm/year. The Soudanian zone in the south has a high potential agro-sylvo-pastoral with 900 to 1200 mm/year and relatively low average temperatures [20]. The cumulative rainfall recorded in 2022 at the sampling sites is listed in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of sampling sites (n = 18) according to climatic zones in Burkina Faso

Full size image
Table 1 Sampling sites [21]
Full size table

Collection and identification of mosquito larvae and other aquatic macroinvertebrates

Mosquito larvae and other aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected from larval habitats in the three climatic zones of Burkina Faso. Sampling was carried out during the period from September to November 2022 in three health regions per climatic zone. In each health region, two villages were randomly selected as collection sites, and ten larval breeding sites were surveyed per village. A standard dipper (350 ml) and 10 L bucket were used to collect mosquito larvae and other macroinvertebrates from the larval habitats. The mosquito larvae and other macroinvertebrates collected were separated and preserved per larval habitat in 15 ml Falcon tubes containing 80% ethanol. These samples were transported to the laboratory of the Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé/Direction Régionale de l’Ouest (IRSS/DRO). The mosquito larvae were identified by using morphological criteria and counted [22]. The different larval stages of Anopheles mosquitoes were determined using sieves (Fisher Scientific Ltd., UK) to separate the larvae according to their size. The other macroinvertebrates were identified on a binocular magnifying glass by using morphological identification keys of Gerber and Gabriel [23], Gill [24], Dejoux et al. [25], Theischinger and Endersby[26], Andersen and Weir [27], Laurince et al. [28], and Tinerella [29]. After morphological identification of the other macroinvertebrates, a literature review was performed to identify the macroinvertebrates that feed on Anopheles larvae [1, 30,31,32,33]. The group of macroinvertebrates that consume Anopheles larvae are the predators. Other macroinvertebrates that do not feed Anopheles larvae are considered to be the coexisting macroinvertebrates because they share with anopheline mosquitoes the same larval habitats and food resources.

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using R software (version 4.3.2). The Shannon–Wiener index and Simpson diversity index were calculated using Eqs. 1 and 2, respectively, to determine the alpha diversity of the macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrates associated with Anopheles larvae in breeding sites in different climatic zones [34]. Heatmaps were performed to assess the different interactions between anopheline mosquito larvae and other macroinvertebrates in aquatic habitats. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the abundance and alpha diversity index of predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates in aquatic environments in the different climatic zones.

$$H^{\prime } {\mkern 1mu} = {\mkern 1mu} - \sum\nolimits_{{i = 1}}^{S} {p_{i} {\text{ ln}}\,p_{i} } \,{\mkern 1mu}$$
(1)
$$D\, = \,1\,\frac{{\sum n\left( {n - 1} \right)}}{{N\left( {N - 1} \right)}}$$
(2)

where:

H’ = Shannon-Wiener index.

pi = proportion of individuals belonging to species i.

ln = natural log.

D = Simpson’s diversity index.

n = total number of organisms of a particular species.

N = total number of organisms of all species.

Results

Abundance of predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates in aquatic habitats

A total of 10,885 macroinvertebrates were collected in mosquito breeding sites in the three climatic zones of Burkina Faso between September and November 2022. Of the total 10,885 macro-invertebrates collected, 10,341 (95%) were mosquito larvae and 544 (5%) were predatory macroinvertebrates and other macroinvertebrates coexisting with Anopheles spp. larvae. In this study, of all samples collected, 24 families of predatory macroinvertebrates and other coexisting macroinvertebrates were identified. The ten most abundant families of which in all climatic zones of Burkina Faso were Corixidae (30.3%), Dytiscidae (19.6%), Baetidae (13.4%), Hydrophilidae (8.6%), Libellulidae (7.9%), Chironomidae (6.8%), Notonectidae (5.2%), Coenagrionidae (4.4%), Nepidae (2%), and Belostomatidae (1.7%). Figure 2 summarizes the different macroinvertebrate distribution by family as a function of abundance. Among the predators, the most abundant were Corixidae, Dysticidae, Hydrophilidae, and Libellulidae (Fig. 2). The most abundant of other macroinvertebrates coexisting with malaria vectors were the Baetidae, Chironomidae, Syrphidae, and Pleidae (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of predatory macroinvertebrates and other macroinvertebrates coexisting with Anopheles larvae

Full size image

Distribution of predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates according to climatic zones

Of the 544 macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrates collected, 68 (12.5%) came from the Sahelian zone, 362 (66.5%) from the Soudano-Sahelian zone, and 114 (21%) from the Soudanian zone. According to climatic zones, the abundance of predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates collected in different aquatic habitats varied significantly (Kruskal–Wallis H test, χ2 = 9.20, df = 2, P = 0.01), with higher abundance in the Soudano-Sahelian region, followed by the Soudanian zone. The Sahelian zone is the climatic zone where macroinvertebrate abundance was the lowest. The abundance of predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates according to climatic zones is shown in the Fig. 3a. The correlation matrix between the abundance of these macroinvertebrates and the climatic zones shown that the taxa associated with the Soudanian zone were the Hydrophilidae, Dystiscidae, Chironomidae, Erpobdellidae, Gerridae, Baetidae, and Libellulidae. This study also showed that Nepidae, Syrphidae, and Thephritidae were associated with the Sahelian zone and Coenagrionidae and Belostomatidae were associated with the Soudano-Sahelian zone (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution of predatory macroinvertebrates and other coexisting macroinvertebrates according to climatic zones (a), correlation matrix between climatic zones, predatory macroinvertebrates, and other coexisting macroinvertebrates (b)

Full size image

Diversity of predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates according to climatic zones

The diversity of macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrates associated with Anopheles larval habitats varied significantly according to climatic zone [Shannon diversity index (Kruskal–Wallis H test, χ2 = 6.49, df = 2, P < 0.05) and Richness specific (Kruskal–Wallis H test, χ2 = 6.01, df = 2, P < 0.05)]. However, no significant differences were found between Simpson’s diversity index and the climatic zones. According to climatic zones, the Soudano-Sahelian zone registered the highest alpha diversity index [species richness (30, 32, 32), Shannon diversity index (2.98, 2.91, 2.85), and Simpson diversity index (0.94, 0.92, 0.91)]. The climatic zone that follows the Soudano-Sahelian zone in terms of diversity was the Soudanian zone [species richness (18, 22, 7), Shannon diversity index (2.43, 2.78, 1.67), and Simpson diversity index (0.90, 0.94, 0.82)]. The climatic zone with the lowest alpha diversity index was the Sahelian zone with a specific richness per month of 8, 9, 2. This climatic zone had a Shannon diversity index per month, respectively, of 2.02, 1.31, 0.56, and a Simpson diversity index of 0.95, 0.63, 0.50 (Fig. 4). Tables 2, 3, and 4 list the predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates taxa sampled by climatic zone.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Variation in alpha diversity indices for predatory macroinvertebrates and other coexisting macroinvertebrates associated with Anopheles spp. breeding sites collected according to climatic zones

Full size image
Table 2 List of macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrate taxa associated with Anopheles breeding sites in Sahelian zone
Full size table
Table 3 List of macroinvertebrates predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrate taxa associated with Anopheles breeding sites in Soudano-Sahelian zone
Full size table
Table 4 List of macroinvertebrates predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrate taxa associated with Anopheles breeding sites in Soudanian zone
Full size table

Relationship between Anopheles larvae, macroinvertebrate predators, and other coexisting macroinvertebrates

Pearson’s correlation coefficients between Anopheles, macroinvertebrate predators, and other coexisting macroinvertebrates were calculated and visualized in a heatmap. In all climatic zones, the analysis showed a weak positive correlation in larval habitats between Anopheles spp. larvae and Notonectidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.40, P < 0.001), Achatinidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.36, P = 0.003), Baetidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.35, P = 0.004), and Belostomatidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.35, P = 0.004) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Correlation matrix between Anopheles spp. larvae and predatory macroinvertebrates and other coexisting macroinvertebrates

Full size image

In the Sahelian zone, significant positive correlations were found between the abundance of Anopheles and those of Corixidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.71, P < 0.001) and Notonectidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.54, P = 0.02). In the Soudano-Sahelian zone, the abundance of Anopheles spp. was positively correlated with the abundance of Achatinidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.59, P = 0.005), Belostomatidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.63, P = 0.002), and Notonectidae (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.61, P = 0.003). However, only the abundance of Baetidae was positively correlated with Anopheles in the Soudanian zone (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Correlation matrix of groupings in the Sahelian zone (a), Soudano-Sahelian zone (b), and Soudanian zone (c)

Full size image

In larval habitats, the abundance of macroinvertebrate families was correlated with the abundance of Anopheles spp. larval stage. The presence of certain families of macroinvertebrates has influenced the abundance of larval stages (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Association between macroinvertebrates and Anopheles larval stages in aquatic habitats

Full size image

Discussion

Macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrates could influence the abundance of Anopheles gambiae s.l., the malaria major vector in Burkina Faso, by feeding on their larvae or by competition in sharing resources in aquatic environments [17, 35]. Improving knowledge of interaction between anopheline mosquito and other macroinvertebrates could help to improve biocontrol strategies. Here, various associations between Anopheles, macroinvertebrate predators, and other coexisting macroinvertebrates in larval habitats were investigated. We also determined the distribution of macroinvertebrates according to climate, and shed light on the different associations existing between the Anopheles larval stages, macroinvertebrate predators, and coexisting macroinvertebrates in larval habitats.

In larval habitats sampled in this study, 24 families of macroinvertebrates cohabiting with Anopheles were identified. Certain families of macroinvertebrates, such as Corixidae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Libellulidae, Notonectidae, Coenagrionidae, Nepidae, and Belostomatidae characterized in this study are known to feed on anopheline mosquito larvae[1, 36,37,38].These predators could contribute to the bioregulation of malaria vector populations and control this disease. Other nonpredatory macroinvertebrates could also have competitive interactions with Anopheles larvae through sharing of resources and indirect interactions. Previous studies have shown that Anopheles larvae cohabit with macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertabrates in larval habitats [17, 18, 30, 39]. A study performed in Uganda shows that macroinvertebrates such as Dytiscidae, Notonectidae, Baetidae, Coenagrionidae, Aeshnidae, Haliplidae, and Elmidae have been found in aquatic habitats such as ponds, streams, temporary pools, and roadside ditches [17]. In Burkina Faso, in the study performed by Diabaté et al. [18] in the Kou Valley (Bama), a rice growing area, the macroinvertebrate families characterized were Notonectidae, Dystiscidae, Corixidae, Hydrophilidae, and Libellulidae.

Spatial distribution of macroinvertebrates varied significantly according to climatic zones. Data in this study suggest that, depending on the climatic zone, there are macroinvertebrate predators that contribute to the biocontrol of mosquito populations. Although studies have shown that the majority of macroinvertebrate predators families characterized are highly effective predators against mosquito larvae [1, 40], pollution of larval habitats by pesticide residues threatens the effectiveness of its predators. Several studies have linked pesticide pollution of larval habitats to a reduction in the macroinvertebrate fraction [41, 42]. Insecticides can cause the direct mortality of the natural enemies of Anopheles larvae [43, 44]. Measures must be taken to prevent the threat of pollution of breeding sites by pesticides commonly used in agriculture to conserve and improve the biodiversity of these predators.

In this study, the highest diversity was observed in the Soudano-Sahelian zone. The highest abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates found in the Soudano-Sahelian zone is thought to be related to the long period of retention of water in larval habitats due to average rainfall, which prevents leaching and drying out of larval habitats, compared with the Soudanian zone with abundant rainfall. Furthermore, in the Sahelian zone, the low abundance and diversity found would be linked to low rainfall, which favors the drying out of larval habitats, making survival conditions difficult for predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates. Other studies have suggested that permanent larval habitats provide favorable conditions for macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrates as previously shown by Bonds et al., Link et al., and Egler et al. [45,46,47].

Overall, in all climatic zones, no significant association was found between Anopheles larvae abundance and the other macroinvertebrates abundance sampled in larval habitats. However, depending on the climatic zone, certain macroinvertebrate families were strongly correlated with Anopheles larvae in larval habitats. Predators can consume Anopheles larvae, reducing their survival and population size, and this association between anopheline mosquito larvae and the predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates can be explained by the fact that some larval predators have developed a behavior of detecting Anopheles larval habitats. In Uganda, Anopheles gambiae s.l. larvae have been shown to cohabit with predators such as Dytiscidae and Cybaeidae [17]. Previous studies documented predation behavior of some predators against anopheline larval [48], and several families of aquatic predators have been shown to be effective in reducing mosquito survival in terms of consuming Anopheles larvae [30]. Testing aquatic macroinvertebrates commonly found in Burkina Faso could help to identify previously unknown predators.

We also show in this study that there are correlations between Anopheles larval stages and certain macroinvertebrate predators and other coexisting macroinvertebrates in aquatic habitats. This finding could be explained by the fact that these macroinvertebrate predators are specialized in consuming a specific anopheline mosquito larval stage, resulting in a reduction in the specific larval stage consumed to the detriment of other stages or through the development of behavior of avoiding larval habitats containing certain predators by females in search of egg-laying sites. Studies have reported that the consumption of mosquito larvae by predators depends on the larval stage [1]. The difficulty for bioregulation-based management of anopheline larvae will be to optimize predator composition by covering all larval stages. More studies on predation efficiency on different life-stages is recommended.

In addition to consumption effects, predators can also have non-consumption effects on Anopheles characteristics. They may have an impact on mosquito body size and survival through non-consumptive effects [49]. These results show that the association between macroinvertebrate predators and mosquito larvae in larval habitats has implications for malaria control, as the biological control of mosquito larvae through the use of macroinvertebrate predators could be a cost-effective and easily applicable strategy [50]. However, predation efficiency, macroinvertebrate enrichment, and life stage-specific and sublethal effects of predation on Anopheles merit definitely further research.

One of the limitations of this study is that it did not investigate the impact of residual pesticides used in agriculture on predators and Anopheles spp. larvae in larval habitats. It is therefore necessary to understand the impact of pesticides used in agriculture on predators. Presence of pesticide residues in larval habitats can cause predator mortality or reduce their effectiveness in controlling vector populations. Further investigations should focus on the impact of pesticide residues and physicochemical parameters of the water in the larval habitats sampled, such as temperature, pH, and water conductivity, which could influence the spatiotemporal distribution of macroinvertebrates. Although this does not affect our interpretation of the results, it would be also interesting to collect data during the dry and rainy seasons to better understand the effects of seasonal variation on macroinvertebrate diversity and predator–prey interactions.

Conclusions

This study showed evidence of the existence of a diversity of macroinvertebrates that could play a predatory role on Anopheles larvae in larval habitats in Burkina Faso. More than 24 families of predatory and other coexisting macroinvertebrates were identified and their abundance varied according to climatic zone. The presence of certain families of macroinvertebrates in the larval habitats has a significant effect on the abundance of Anopheles spp., demonstrating the possibility of using them for larval control. Our next objective is to assess the predatory efficiency of commonly cohabiting macroinvertebrates commonly found in Burkina Faso.

Availability of data and materials

The data used in this article are available on request by contacting the corresponding authors.

Abbreviations

pH:

Potential hydrogen

s.l.:

Sensu lato

spp.:

Multiple species of the genus

C:

Degrees Celsius

References

  1. Eba K, Duchateau L, Olkeba BK, Boets P, Bedada D, Goethals PLM, et al. Bio-control of Anopheles mosquito larvae using invertebrate predators to support human health programs in Ethiopia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1810.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. World malaria report 2023. https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2023. Accessed 22 May 2024.

  3. World Health Organization. Fact sheet about malaria. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria. Accessed 3 Sep 2023.

  4. Sawadogo SP, Niang A, Wu sp, Millogo AA, Bonds J, Latham M, et al. Comparison of entomological impacts of two methods of intervention designed to control Anopheles gambiae s.l. via swarm killing in Western Burkina Faso. Sci Rep. 2022;12:12397.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ricciardi A, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP, Lockwood JL. Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of nonnative species. Ecol Monogr. 2013;83:263–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Edillo FE, Touré YT, Lanzaro GC, Dolo G, Taylor CE. Spatial and habitat distribution of Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae) in Banambani village. Mali J Med Entomol. 2002;39:70–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lehmann T, Diabate A. The molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae: a phenotypic perspective. Infect Genet Evol. 2008;8:737–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gimonneau G, Pombi M, Dabiré RK, Diabaté A, Morand S, Simard F. Behavioural responses of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto M and S molecular form larvae to an aquatic predator in Burkina Faso. Parasit Vect. 2012;5:65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Service MW. Mortalities of the immature stages of species B of the Anopheles gambiae complex in Kenya: comparison between rice fields and temporary pools, identification of predators, and effects of insecticidal spraying. J Med Entomol. 1977;13:535–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paaijmans KP, Wandago MO, Githeko AK, Takken W. Unexpected high losses of Anopheles gambiae larvae due to rainfall. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e1146. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1371/journal.pone.0001146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ongwen F, Onyango PO, Bukhari T. Direct and indirect effects of predation and parasitism on the Anopheles gambiae mosquito. Parasit Vect. 2020;13:43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Crane K, Cuthbert R, Dick J, Kregting L, MacIsaac H, Coughlan N. Full steam ahead: direct steam exposure to inhibit spread of invasive aquatic macrophytes. Biol Invasions. 2019;21:1311–21. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10530-018-1901-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Collins CM, Bonds JAS, Quinlan MM, Mumford JD. Effects of the removal or reduction in density of the malaria mosquito, anopheles gambiae s.l. on interacting predators and competitors in local ecosystems. Med Vet Entomol. 2019;33:1–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roux O, Robert V. Larval predation in malaria vectors and its potential implication in malaria transmission: an overlooked ecosystem service? Parasit Vect. 2019;12:217. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13071-019-3479-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tusting LS. Larval source management: a supplementary measure for malaria control. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2014;12:217. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1564/v25_feb_13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shaalan EA-S, Canyon DV. Aquatic insect predators and mosquito control. Trop Biomed. 2009;26:223–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Onen H, Odong R, Chemurot M, Tripet F, Kayondo JK. Predatory and competitive interaction in Anopheles gambiae sensu lato larval breeding habitats in selected villages of central Uganda. Parasit Vect. 2021;14:420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Diabaté A, Dabiré RK, Heidenberger K, Crawford J, Lamp WO, Culler LE, et al. Evidence for divergent selection between the molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae: role of predation. BMC Evol Biol. 2008;8:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Roux O, Vantaux A, Roche B, Yameogo KB, Dabiré KR, Diabaté A, et al. Evidence for carry-over effects of predator exposure on pathogen transmission potential. Proc Biol Sci. 2015;282:20152430.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Basson F, Zougmoré F, Somda J, Dipama J-M, Ilboudo H. Analyse du plan national d’adaptation aux changements climatiques (PNA) du Burkina Faso et de sa capacité à atteindre ses objectifs. Eur Sci J. 2020;16:149–149. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n27p149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Agence National de météorologie (ANAM-BF). Etat climat de l’année 2022 au Burkina Faso. 2023. https://www.meteoburkina.bf/produits/etat-annuel-du-climat/etat-du-climat-de-lannee-2022/

  22. Robert V, Ndiaye EH, Rahola N, Le Goff G, Boussès P, Diallo D, et al. Clés dichotomiques illustrées d’identification des femelles et des larves de moustiques (Diptera : Culicidae) du Burkina Faso, Cap-Vert, Gambie, Mali, Mauritanie, Niger, Sénégal et Tchad. 2022; 1–162

  23. Gerber A, Gabriel MJM. Aquatic invertebrates of South African rivers field guide. 2002. p1–78

  24. Gill K. Aquatic invertebrates of South African rivers. 2015: 1–6.

  25. Dejoux C, Elouard JM, Forge P, Maslin JL. Catalogue iconographique des insectes aquatiques de Côte d’Ivoire. 1983: p1–92.

  26. Theischinger G, Endersby I. Australian dragonfly (Odonata) larvae: descriptive history and identification. Mem Mus Vic. 2014;72:73–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Andersen NM, Weir TA. Family Nepidae. In: Australian water bugs. Brill. 2004. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004474512/B9789004474512_s018.xml. Accessed 29 Aug 2023.

  28. Laurince YM, Célestin AB, Philippe K. Inventaire des insectes aquatiques des étangs de piscicoles au sud de la Côte d’Ivoire. J Appl Biosci. 2012;58:4208–22.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tinerella PP. Taxonomic revision and systematics of New Guinea and Oceania pygmy water boatmen (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Corixoidea: Micronectidae). Zootaxa. 2008;1797:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mahenge HH, Muyaga LL, Nkya JD, Kifungo KS, Kahamba NF, Ngowo HS, et al. Common predators and factors influencing their abundance in Anopheles funestus aquatic habitats in rural south-eastern Tanzania. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0287655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Muiruri SK, Mwangangi JM, Carlson J, Kabiru EW, Kokwaro E, Githure J, et al. Effect of predation on Anopheles larvae by five sympatric insect families in coastal Kenya. J Vector Borne Dis. 2013;50:45–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kang JH, Lim C, Park SH, Kim WG, Sareein N, Bae YJ. Genetic and morphologic variation in a potential mosquito biocontrol agent, Hydrochara affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Sustainability. 2020;12:5481.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kutschera U. The feeding strategies of the leech Erpobdella octoculata (L.): a laboratory study. Int Rev Hydrobiol. 2003;88:94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Saka M, Mamman G, Adedotun A. Comparison of Shannon-Weinner’s and Simpson’s indices for estimating birds species diversity in Bodel forest of Gashaka Gumti national park Nigeria. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2022;10:144–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Soma DD, Zogo BM, Somé A, Tchiekoi BN, de Hien DF, Pooda HS, et al. Anopheles bionomics, insecticide resistance and malaria transmission in southwest Burkina Faso: a pre-intervention study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0236920.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rawani A. Potential biological control agents for the control of vector mosquitoes: a review. Not Sci Biol. 2023;15:11325–11325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Priyadarshana TS, Slade EM. A meta-analysis reveals that dragonflies and damselflies can provide effective biological control of mosquitoes. J Anim Ecol. 2023;92:1589–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ohba S-Y, Kawada H, Dida GO, Juma D, Sonye G, Minakawa N, et al. Predators of Anopheles gambiae sensu lato (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae in wetlands, western Kenya: confirmation by polymerase chain reaction method. J Med Entomol. 2010;47:783–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dida GO, Gelder FB, Anyona DN, Abuom PO, Onyuka JO, Matano A-S, et al. Presence and distribution of mosquito larvae predators and factors influencing their abundance along the Mara river Kenya and Tanzania. Springerplus. 2015;4:136.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Bonds JA, Collins CM, Gouagna L-C. Could species-focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? an evidence synthesis from the literature. Pest Manag Sci. 2022;78:2729–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Link M, Schreiner VC, Graf N, Szöcs E, Bundschuh M, Battes KP, et al. Pesticide effects on macroinvertebrates and leaf litter decomposition in areas with traditional agriculture. Sci Total Environ. 2022;828:154549.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Egler M, Df B, Jc M, Df B. Influence of agricultural land-use and pesticides on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in an agricultural river basin in southeast Brazil. Braz J Biol. 2012;72:437–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Provost C, Coderre D, Lucas É, Chouinard G, Bostanian N. Impact d’une dose sublétale de lambda-cyhalothrine sur les prédateurs intraguildes d’acariens phytophages en vergers de pommiers. Phytoprotection. 2003;84:105–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Torres JB, de Bueno A. Conservation biological control using selective insecticides – A valuable tool for IPM. Biol Control. 2018;126:53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Collinson NH, Biggs J, Corfield A, Hodson MJ, Walker D, Whitfield M, et al. Temporary and permanent ponds: an assessment of the effects of drying out on the conservation value of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. Biol Conserv. 1995;74:125–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Carlson J, Keating J, Mbogo CM, Kahindi S, Beier JC. Ecological limitations on aquatic mosquito predator colonization in the urban environment. J Vector Ecol. 2004;29:331–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Mackay RJ. Temporary aquatic habitats. J N Am Benthol Soc. 1996;15:407–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Liu F, Sun H, Zwiebel LJ. Cup and pan behavioral assays for assessing Anopheles coluzzii larval volatile responses. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2023:pdb.prot108021. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1101/pdb.prot108021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Russell MC, Herzog CM, Gajewski Z, Ramsay C, El Moustaid F, Evans MV, et al. Both consumptive and non-consumptive effects of predators impact mosquito populations and have implications for disease transmission. Elife. 2022;11:e71503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Stoops CA, Gionar YR. Environmental factors associated with spatial and temporal distribution of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae in Sukabumi, West Java, Indonesia. J Med Entomol. 2007;44:543–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank the technical staff of IRSS-DRO and the health district workers of Burkina Faso for their significant contributions in collecting the samples.

Funding

Funding of this study was provided by the Pan-African Mosquito Control Association (PAMCA), grant no.: OPP1214408 and the Wellcome Trust, grant no.: Wellcome Grant ref.224487/Z/21/Z.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Recherche en Sciences de La Santé (IRSS), Direction Régionale de L’Ouest (DRO), 399 Avenue de La Liberté, 01 BP 545, Bobo-Dioulasso 01, Burkina Faso

    Judicael Ouedraogo, Simon P. Sawadogo, Abdoulaye Niang, Abdoulaye Soulama, Sylvie Yerbanga, Tarwendpanga F. X. Ouédraogo, Bouraïma Vincent Séré, Charles Guissou, Roch K. Dabiré & Abdoulaye Diabaté

  2. Laboratoire d’Entomologie Fondamentale Et Appliquée (LEFA), Université Joseph KI-ZERBO, 03 BP 7021, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

    Judicael Ouedraogo, Bouraïma Vincent Séré & Olivier Gnankine

  3. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Vectorielle Et Parasitaire, Département de Biologie Animale, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar-Fann, Dakar, BP, 5005, Sénégal

    Abdoulaye Niang

  4. Université Nazi Boni, 01 BP 1091, Bobo-Dioulasso 01, Burkina Faso

    Tarwendpanga F. X. Ouédraogo

  5. Unit Entomology, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, Antwerp, Belgium

    Ruth Müller

Authors
  1. Judicael Ouedraogo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon P. Sawadogo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdoulaye Niang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdoulaye Soulama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sylvie Yerbanga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tarwendpanga F. X. Ouédraogo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bouraïma Vincent Séré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Charles Guissou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Roch K. Dabiré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ruth Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. Olivier Gnankine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. Abdoulaye Diabaté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.O., S.P.S., A.N., O.G., and A.D. conceived the study design. S.P.S., A.N., S.Y., and A.S. supervised sample collection. J.O. conducted laboratory work and performed the data analysis. J.O. and S.P.S. drafted the manuscript. T.F.X.O., B.S., A.N., C.G., R.K.D., R.M., O.G., and A.D. reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Judicael Ouedraogo, Simon P. Sawadogo or Olivier Gnankine.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ouedraogo, J., Sawadogo, S.P., Niang, A. et al. Interaction of predatory macroinvertebrate communities with malaria vectors in aquatic habitats of three climatic zones in Burkina Faso. Parasites Vectors 18, 158 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13071-025-06794-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13071-025-06794-z

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us