Table 2.
Synopsis of invasive and non-native mosquitoes (excluding Aedes albopictus) for which ecological processes are postulated to produce effects on invasion success and impact
| Species (references) | Location and date of introduction (status) | Possible ecological processes (references) |
|---|---|---|
| Aedes aegypti (Christophers 1960; Tabachnick 1991; Lounibos 2002) | Southern North America 16–17th centuries (invasive, but reduced in distribution as introduction of Aedes albopictus) | Interspecific competition: Aedes aegypti is superior in larval competition to Ochlerotatus triseriatus (Ho et al. 1989) and may have displaced O. triseriatus in man-made containers in domestic areas.
Predation: Aedes aegypti is more vulnerable to predation by Toxorhynchites rutilus than is O. triseriatus (Grill & Juliano 1996), and abundance of T. rutilus in containers in wooded areas may have limited invasion success of Aedes aegypti in these habitats |
| Aedes aegypti (Christophers 1960; Tabachnick 1991; Lounibos 2002) | Southeast Asia 19–20th centuries (invasive) | Interspecific competition: Declines of Aedes albopictus in tropical urban areas may have been caused by invasion of Aedes aegypti (Chan et al. 1971; Sucharit et al. 1978) |
| Culex pipiens (Vinogradova 2000; Lounibos 2002) | North America (16–17th centuries; invasive) | Interspecific competition: Absence of competitors at the time of invasion may have facilitated colonization of urban containers. More recently, competition with invading Aedes albopictus may impact C. pipiens in these habitats (Carrieri et al. 2003; Costanzo et al. 2005) |
| Culex quinquefasciatus (Weinstein et al. 1997) | New Zealand, Hawaii, 19th century (invasive) | Absence of competitors and predators: This may have contributed to invasive success in container habitats (Weinstein et al. 1997) |
| Culex quinquefasciatus | Australia 19th century (invasive) | Interspecific competition, or apparent competition via a gut symbiotic fungus: Asymmetrical interactions with tadpoles may have limited invasive success in pond habitats (Mokany & Shine 2003a,b,c) |
| Culex quinquefasciatus (Vinogradova 2000) | North America 19th century (invasive) | Interspecific competition: Superiority in interspecific competition with native Culex may have contributed to declines of C. tarsalis in California (Smith et al. 1995) |
| Anopheles gambiae complex (Soper & Wilson 1943) | Brazil, 1930s (invasive, but eradicated in 1941) | Intraguild predation: Last instar larvae of this complex are facultatively predaceous on smaller Anopheles larvae (Koenraadt & Takken 2003; Koenraadt et al. 2004), and thus have the potential to impact native Anopheles via intraguild predation.
Interspecific competition: Absence of competitors may have facilitated invasion of man-made habitats |
| Ochlerotatus bahamensis (O’Meara et al. 1989, 1995a) | South Florida (non-native) | Interspecific competition: This with previously introduced Aedes albopictus may limit invasion success of Ochlerotatus bahamensis |
| Ochlerotatus japonicus (Andreadis et al. 2001) | Eastern North America (invasive) | Interspecific competition: This with invasive Ochlerotatus atropalpus and native O. triseriatus may limit invasion success of Ochlerotatus japonicus |