170 Journal of Vector Ecology June 2011 Heteropteran insects as mosquito predators in water jars in southern Vietnam Shin-ya Ohba1,3*, T.T Trang Huynh2, Hitoshi Kawada1, Loan Luu Le2, Huu Tran Ngoc2, San Le Hoang2, Yukiko Higa1, and Masahiro Takagi1 Department of Vector Ecology & Environment, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Sakamoto, Nagasaki 8528523, Japan Pasteur Institute in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Center for Ecological Research, Kyoto University, Otsu 520-2113, Japan Received 14 April 2010; Accepted 11 May 2010 ABSTRACT: Residents of Vietnam living in areas with water shortages and/or poor tap water maintain water storage containers, such as jars, in and around their domiciles in order to store water used in daily life Although these water jars are known to be important breeding sources of the Aedes mosquito, use of chemical larvicides in such containers is legally prohibited in Vietnam In this study, we identiied the dominant mosquito insect predators in water jars in and around residences located in Tan Chanh, Long An, southern Vietnam Of 3,646 Heteroptera collected from such jars, Corixidae (Micronecta spp.) and Veliidae (Microvelia spp.) were revealed to be the dominant predators Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis revealed that 40% of Micronecta and 12% of Veliidae had Aedes aegypti-positive reactions, indicating that these two dominant Heteroptera are important predators of Ae aegypti Our results suggest that aquatic Heteroptera may be an important mosquito control agent in addition to the currently used copepods Journal of Vector Ecology 36 (1): 170-174 2011 Keyword Index: Corixidae, Veliidae, Aedes aegypti, water jars, PCR INTRODUCTION Dengue fever virus is transmitted by vector mosquitoes, predominantly Aedes aegypti (L.) and Ae albopictus (Skuse) (Gratz 2004, Phillips 2008) To date, reduction in the population density of vector mosquitoes has been the only treatment option for controlling the transmission of dengue virus in the human population, since there is no promising vaccine for the prevention of dengue (Farrar et al 2007) he mosquitoes Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus feed on human blood and deposit their eggs in water collected in a variety of artiicial containers found in and around the human habitat Vector control activities, such as the use of larvivorous ish (e.g., Poecilia reticulate) and copepods (Mesocyclops), chemical larvicides, and adoption of preventive practices by local residents (e.g., the use of covers on water storage containers, frequent exchange of water in containers, or elimination of unnecessary containers) (Kay and Nam 2005, Morrison et al 2008, Devine et al 2009) have targeted the larvae or pupae of these mosquitoes in their attempts to reduce vector density In Vietnam, residents living in areas with poor tap water systems lack a reliable supply of water, especially in the dry season To ensure that they are able to meet daily water needs, residents keep water storage containers in and around their living areas Although water storage containers, such as jars, are regarded as important breeding sources of Aedes mosquitoes, it is legally prohibited in Vietnam to use chemical larvicides in such water storage containers hus, the use of lids, net covers, and predacious copepods have been adopted as the primary methods for controlling Aedes mosquitoes in Vietnam Various organisms have been considered as possible efective predators of mosquitoes (reviewed in Kumar and Hwang 2006, Mogi 2007, Quiroz-Martinez and RodriguezCastro 2007, Shaalan and Canyon 2009) Jenkins (1964) published a list of 220 species of invertebrate predators, of which only a few can be manipulated as biological controls Of these few species, aquatic Heteroptera (Notonectidae, Belostomatidae, Nepidae, and Naucoridae) and semiaquatic Heteroptera (Veliidae and Gerridae), which inhabit rice ields and marshes, are ecologically important mosquito predators (reviewed in Mogi 2007, Quiroz-Martinez and Rodriguez-Castro 2007) Nam et al (2000) revealed that in Vietnam, large domestic containers inhabited by Micronecta quadristigata (Corixidae) were positive for Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus less frequently than containers without such inhabitants hus, in addition to Mesocyclops spp copepods, Heteroptera are believed to be efective as mosquito control agents in Vietnam (Nam et al 2000) However, very few studies have investigated the biological communities of insect predators living in water jars Following the primary methods for detecting predation such as observation, excluding natural enemies, and the radionuclide technique (Service 1993), Service (1973, 1977) we used the serological method in order to conirm predation of Anopheles mosquito larvae in predators’ gut contents Schielke et al (2007) showed that Anopheles mosquito DNA can be detected ater ingestion by members of the Odonata, Heteroptera herefore, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay could be useful for detecting mosquito larval predators in natural breeding Vol 36, no Journal of Vector Ecology sites In the present study, we irst examined the abundance of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera inhabiting water storage jars near houses in southern Vietnam We then carried out PCR analysis in order to determine whether the dominant Heteroptera insects do, in fact, feed on mosquito larvae MATERIALS AND METHODS Investigation of mosquito insect predator abundance in water jars he survey was conducted within Tan Chanh District in Long An Province, Vietnam (10° 09´ N, 106° 42´ E), during March to March 30, 2009 his period was within the dry season, and residents in this area usually had 5–18 jars placed around their houses Jars were typically 0.60 to 0.88 m in height with a mouth diameter of 0.45 to 0.47 m and a maximum capacity of 200 to 260 liters For the entomological survey, a 0.1 mm gauze dip net (200 mm in diameter with a 1.2 m-long handle) was used to catch all insects in water jars he water in the jars was sampled using a ive-sweep netting technique, which involved sweep around the periphery at the water surface (with the net held perpendicular to the surface), followed by 3-1/2 similar sweeps down through the water column, with the last full sweep at the container bottom he inal half sweep was brought up through the center of the column with the net held parallel to the water surface (see Knox et al 2007) Insects thus trapped were transferred to the Pasteur Institute Laboratory in Ho Chi Minh City Insects were then sorted on the basis of Polhemus (1996) and counted within each taxon Evaluation of prey found in the midgut of Heteroptera predators using PCR PCR analysis was carried out in order to conirm (1) the digestive time duration in the midgut of dominant Heteroptera (Micronecta spp.) and (2) whether Corixidae (Micronecta spp.) and Veliidae (Microvelia spp.) feed on Aedes larvae, as Schielke et al (2007) have reported In this analysis, DNA was extracted using REDExtract-N-Amp Tissue PCR Kit (Sigma, St Louis, MO) he extraction solution (20 μl) and tissue preparation solution (5 μl) were mixed, and each individual sample was homogenized in a 1.5-ml tube and incubated at room temperature for 10 min, followed by incubation at 95° C for Neutralization solution (20 μl) was added to the sample and mixed by vortexing he resultant mixture was used directly for the PCR Although the total of 1,335 of Aedes larvae found in water jars in this area in August, October, and December 2008, and February 2009 were Aedes aegypti (100%, Tsunoda, unpublished data), Aedes aegypti and Ae albopictus were found in the study area (Kawada et al 2009) So, multiplex PCR was conducted by using two primers for both Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus (Higa et al., unpublished data) Internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions, including 18S, 5.8S, and 16S of rDNA, were PCR-ampliied using the 171 forward primer: 18SFHIN, 5´-GTA AGC TTC CTT TGT ACA CAC CGC CCG T-3´ (Crabtree et al 1995), and the newly designed speciic reverse primers: aeg.r1 and alb r1 (Higa et al 2010) All PCRs were performed in a total volume of 8.65 μl that contained μl of template DNA, μl of 10× Ex Taq bufer, 0.8 μl of dNTP (2.5 mM each), 0.05 μl of TaKaRa Ex Taq polymerase (5 units/μl), and 0.5 μl of 0.4 picomole of each primer in 10 μl of reaction mixture (TaKaRa Ex Taq®, TaKaRa Bio Inc., Shiga, Japan) he PCR reaction mixture was heated to 96° C for 12 and then put through 40 cycles of PCR ampliication: 96° C for 30 sec, 52° C for 30 sec, and 72° C for 1.5 min, followed by 72° C for he ampliied DNA was loaded onto an agarose gel (2%) with the 100-bp ladder loading marker (Bio-Rad, Richmond, CA), stained with ethidium bromide solution (Wako Inc., Tokyo, Japan), and visualized on an ultraviolet (UV) transilluminator (TF-20C; Vilber Lourmat, Marne-laVallée, France) Documentation of digestive time duration in the midgut of Micronecta Because Micronecta was the most common insect among the insect predators, we conirmed a positive reaction to Ae aegypti in the midgut of Micronecta at various times ater feeding To supply a single 4th instar Ae aegypti larva, a single adult or inal instar of Micronecta was placed into a cm diameter plastic cup to which water had been added to a depth of cm Ater each individual Micronecta inished feeding on Ae aegypti, it was preserved in 99% ethanol until analysis he procedure of preserving individual Micronecta within (just ater feeding) and at h ater feeding on an Ae aegypti larva was replicated 15 times As a preliminary test, we also carried out PCR analysis at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h ater feeding (each experiment was replicated four times) using Micronecta spp that had been previously collected from the study site in February, 2009 A stock culture of this species was established in the laboratory (F2–F3 generations) Conirmation of Heteroptera midgut collected from water jars PCR analysis was carried out in order to conirm whether the dominant Heteroptera, Corixidae (Micronecta spp.) and Veliidae (Microvelia spp.), had been collected from the water jars he Micronecta and Microvelia inhabiting the mosquito-positive jars were collected in June, 2009 using a 0.1-mm gauze dip net and pipette he collected specimens were immediately transferred to 99% ethanol and were subsequently transferred to fresh 99% ethanol h ater the irst ixation for PCR analysis Twenty-ive individuals of both Micronecta and Microvelia were placed on clean paper for 30 in order to remove the ethanol before PCR analysis 172 June 2011 Journal of Vector Ecology Table Aquatic Heteroptera individuals in jars, Tan Chanh District, Long An Province, southern Vietnam No positive jars Positive % No individuals per jar ± S.E Corixidae Family Micronecta Genus Total no surveyed jars 247 102 41.3 11.89 ± 2.59 Veliidae Microvelia 247 51 20.6 1.13 ± 0.19 Pleidae Unknown 247 0.8 0.02 ± 0.01 Gerridae Unknown 247 0.8 0.02 ± 0.02 RESULTS We did not ind Odonata nymphs, Coleoptera (Dytiscidae and Hydrophylidae), or predatory mosquitoes (Toxorhynchites spp and Lutzia spp.) in the water jars herefore, we focused on Heteropteran insects Among the Heteroptera, we focused on Notonectidae (backswimmer) as the most efective mosquito predator (reviewed in Mogi 2007, Quiroz-Martinez and Rodriguez-Castro 2007) However, even though we conirmed the presence of Notonectidae in the water jars, their abundances were very low hus, it was necessary to consider other Heteropteran mosquito predators such as Belostomatidae (Saha et al 2009), Naucoridae (McCoull et al 1998), Nepidae (Ohba and Nakasuji 2006), Veliidae (Miura and Takahashi 1998), and Gerridae (Spence and Andersen 1994) Further examination revealed that Corixidae (Micronecta spp.) and Veliidae (Microvelia spp.) were the dominant Heteroptera in the water jars (Table 1) We found a positive reaction to mosquito DNA from the midgut of Micronecta (Corixidae) herefore, the PCR method conirmed the presence of mosquitoes in the midgut of Micronecta just ater feeding Our PCR analysis further revealed that 40% of Micronecta and 12% of Microvelia (Veliidae) showed an Ae aegypti-positive reaction (10/25 and 3/25; Figure 2) Nam et al (2000) suggested that insect predators such as Micronecta (Corixidae) living in artiicial containers could suppress Aedes larva, but their study did not show direct evidence that Micronecta preyed upon Ae aegypti larvae his study, then, is the irst to ofer direct evidence that Micronecta and Microvelia feed on Ae aegypti in water jars In addition, under laboratory conditions, we observed that Micronecta and Microvelia attacked Ae aegypti larvae and pupae (Ohba, unpublished data), supporting the concept that these two dominant Figure Examination of the Aedes gene in the midgut of Micronecta by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ampliication Lanes and 2: just ater feeding; lanes and 4: h ater feeding; lanes and 6: h ater feeding; lanes and 8: h ater feeding; and lane M represents the 100-bp ladder loading marker Figure Examination of the Aedes gene in the midgut of Micronecta and Microvelia by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ampliication Lanes and 2: Aedes aegypti; lanes and 4: Ae albopictus; lanes and 6: Micronecta; lanes and 8: Micronecta and Microvelia feeding on Ae aegypti; and lane M represents the 100-bp ladder loading marker Investigation of mosquito insect predator abundance in water jars In this study, 3,646 aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera were collected from water jars, including Corixidae, Veliidae, Gerridae, and Pleidae Of these Heteroptera, Corixidae (Micronecta spp.; 91.0%) and Veliidae (Microvelia spp.; 8.6%) were the dominant Heteroptera in the water jars he number of individuals per jar was highest for Corixidae, followed by Veliidae (Table 1) he following analysis focused on these two species as mosquito predators Evaluation of prey found in the midgut of Heteroptera predators using PCR We could ind a positive reaction to mosquito DNA from the midgut of Micronecta (Corixidae) just ater feeding (87%, 13/15 = no of positive individuals/total individuals) and h ater h feeding (13%, 2/15) No positive reaction from the midgut of Micronecta was found at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h ater feeding (Figure 1) herefore, the PCR method conirmed the presence of mosquitoes in the midgut of Micronecta just ater feeding Our PCR analysis further revealed that 40% of Micronecta and 12% of Microvelia (Veliidae) showed an Ae aegypti-positive reaction (10/25 and 3/25, Figure 2) DISCUSSION Vol 36, no Journal of Vector Ecology Heteroptera are important predators of Ae aegypti in water jars hus, our results suggest that these two insect predators, in addition to copepods, are important mosquito control agents in water jars (Kay and Nam 2005, Morrison et al 2008) Unlike copepods, however, these heteropteran insects can distribute themselves widely by light, which is an important advantage for heteropteran insect predators In the present study, we did not conirm whether Gerridae or Pleidae in water jars feed on Aedes larvae herefore, revealing the predatory ability of each Heteropteran insect is an important subject for future study Moreover, it will be necessary to collect heteropteran insects in water jars during the rainy season in order to reveal their abundance, life cycles, and the relationship between aquatic Heteroptera and copepods such as intraguild predation and competition Acknowledgments We thank N Minakawa and T Tsunoda of Nagasaki University for their important suggestions during this study We are also grateful to the entomological staf of the Ho Chi Minh Pasteur Institute his study was supported in part by KAKENHI 19256002, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) to M.T REFERENCES CITED Crabtree, M.B., H.M Savage, and B.R Miller 1995 Development of species-diagnostic polymerase chain reaction assay for the identiication of Culex vectors of St Louis encephalitis virus based on interspecies sequence variation in ribosomal DNA spacers Am J Trop Med Hyg 53: 105-109 Devine, G.J., E.Z Perea, G.F Killeen, J.D Stancil, S.J Clark, and A.C Morrison 2009 Using adult mosquitoes to transfer insecticides to Aedes aegypti larval habitats Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 11530-11534 Farrar, J D Focks, D Gubler, R Barrera, M.G Guzman, C Simmons, S Kalayanarooj, L Lum, P.J McCall, L Lloyd, O Horstick, R Dayal-Drager, M.B Nathan, and A Kroeger 2007 Towards a global dengue research agenda Trop Med Intl Hlth 12: 695-699 Gratz, N.G 2004 Critical review of the vector status of Aedes albopictus Med Vet Entomol 18: 215-227 Higa, Y., T Toma, Y Tsuda, and I Miyagi 2010 A multiplex PCR-based molecular identiication of ive morphologically related, medically important subgenus Stegomyia mosquitoes from the genus Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) found in the Ryukyu Archipelago, Japan Jpn J Infect Dis 63: 312-316 Jenkins, D.W 1964 Pathogens, parasites and predators of medically important arthropods Bull Wld Hlth Organ 30 (Suppl.): 1-150 Kawada, H Y Higa, T.Y Nguyen, H.S Tran, T.H Nguyen, and M Takagi 2009 Nationwide investigation on the pyrethroid susceptibility of mosquito larvae collected 173 from used tires in Vietnam PLoS Negl Trop Dis 3: e391 Kay, B.H and V.S Nam 2005 New strategy against Aedes aegypti in Vietnam Lancet 365: 613-617 Knox, T.B., N.T Yen, V.S Nam, M.L Gatton, B.H Kay, and P.A Ryan 2007 Critical evaluation of quantitative sampling methods for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) immatures in water storage containers in Vietnam J Med Entomol 44: 192-204 Kumar, R and J Hwang 2006 Larvicidal eiciency of aquatic predators: A perspective for mosquito biocontrol Zool Studies, 2006 45: 447-466 McCoull, C.J., R Swain, and R.W Barnes 1998 Efect of temperature on the functional response and components of attack rate in Naucoris congrex Stål (Hemiptera: Naucoridae) Aust J Ecol 37: 323-327 Miura, T and R Takahashi 1988 Predation of Microvelia pulchella (Heteroptera: Veliidae) on mosquito larvae J Am Mosq Contr Assoc 4: 91-93 Mogi, M 2007 Insects and other invertebrate predators In: T.G Floore (ed) Biorational Control of Mosquitoes pp 93-109 Supplement to the Journal of the Mosquito Control Association No American Mosquito Control Association, Mount Laurel, NJ Morrison, A.C., E Zielinski-Gutierrez, T.W Scott, and R Rosenberg 2008 Deining challenges and proposing solutions for control of the virus vector Aedes aegypti PLoS Med 5: e68 Nam, V.S., N.T Yen, M Holynska, J.W Reid, and B.H Kay 2000 National progress in dengue control in Vietnam: survey for Mesocyclops (Copepoda), Micronecta (Corixidae), and ish as biological control agents Am J Trop Med Hyg 62: 5-10 Ohba, S and F Nakasuji 2006 Dietary items of predacious aquatic bugs (Nepoidea: Heteroptera) in Japanese wetlands Limnology 7:41-43 Phillips, M 2008 Dengue reborn: widespread resurgence of a resilient vector Environ Health Perspect 116: A382-A388 Polhemus, J.T 1996 Aquatic and semiaquatic Hemiptera In: R.W Merritt and K.W Cummins (eds.) An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America pp 231-260 Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa Quiroz-Martinez, H and A.Rodriguez-Castro 2007 Aquatic insects as predators of mosquito larvae In: T.G Floore (ed) Biorational Control of Mosquitoes pp 110-117 Supplement to the Journal of the Mosquito Control Association No American Mosquito Control Association, Mount Laurel, NJ Saha, N., G Aditya, G.K Saha, and S.E Hampton 2009 Opportunistic foraging by heteropteran mosquito predators Aquat Ecol 44: 167-176 Shaalan, E.A.S and D.V Canyon 2009 Aquatic insect predators and mosquito control Trop Biomed 26: 223-261 Service, M.W 1973 Mortalities of the larvae of the Anopheles gambiae Giles complex and detection of predators by the precipitin test Bull Entomol Res 62: 359–369 174 Journal of Vector Ecology Service, M.W 1977 Mortalities of the immature stages of species B of the Anopheles gambiae complex in Kenya: comparison between rice ields and temporary pools, identiication of predators, and efects of insecticidal spraying J Med Entomol 13: 535–545 Service, M.W 1994 Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods 2nd ed., Elsevier Applied Science, London June 2011 Spence, J.R, and N.M Andersen 1994 Biology of water striders: interactions between systematics and ecology Annu Rev Entomol 39: 101-128 Schielke, E., C Costantini, G Carchini, N.F Sagnon, J Powell, and A Caccone 2007 Short report: Development of a molecular assay to detect predation on Anopheles gambiae complex larval stages Am J Trop Med Hyg 77: 464-466 ... m-long handle) was used to catch all insects in water jars he water in the jars was sampled using a ive-sweep netting technique, which involved sweep around the periphery at the water surface (with... determine whether the dominant Heteroptera insects do, in fact, feed on mosquito larvae MATERIALS AND METHODS Investigation of mosquito insect predator abundance in water jars he survey was conducted... are important predators of Ae aegypti in water jars hus, our results suggest that these two insect predators, in addition to copepods, are important mosquito control agents in water jars (Kay and