Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 18;7:2. doi: 10.1186/s40249-017-0385-0

Table 2.

Mean densities ± SE different larvae of mosquitoes (per habitat type) along the Mara River

Taxa Drying streams *Other habitat types Open puddles Vegetated pools Rock pools Animal hoofprints Rivers
An. arabiensis 34.6 ± 23.8 12.31 ± 6.4 29.1 ± 12.1 8.8 ± 1.3 4.3 ± 0.2 4.1 ± 5.1 0.0
An. gambiae s.s. 27.4 ± 18.4 20.3 ± 5.0 26.2 ± 4.1 19.1 ± 3.6 0.0 2.1 ± 1.3 0.0
Cx. pipiens 12.2 ± 7.4 3.8 ± 0.8 16.2 ± 1.4 5.1 ± 0.9 0.0 4.6 ± 1.5 0.0
An. coustani 20.3 ± 9.7 48.2 ± 8.7 1.0 ± 0.4 11.0 ± 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cx. quinquefasciatus 20.2 ± 7.6 27.2 ± 0.2 18.1 ± 8.0 22.1 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.2 0.1 ± 0.1 0.0
An. funestus group 0.9 ± 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 ± 1.5 0.0 0. 0 0.0
An. pharoensis 2.1 ± 0.1 5.2 ± 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
An. azamiae 0.0 0.1 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
An. christyi 0.3 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
An. maculipalpis 0.0 <1.0 26.3 ± 11.4 0.1 ± 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
An. ardenis 0.0 0.0 2.2 ± 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
An. sergentii 1.4 ± 0.4 2.3 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
An. faini 0.0 0.0 3.4 ± 1.4 1.6 ± 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Aedes spp. 0.0 0.0 < 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

The numbers of mosquitoes were higher in the drying streams followed by isolated swamp by the river. Except for only two An. coustani caught in the river environment, none of the mosquito larvae species was sampled from the main Mara River