Was this on the program The Takeaway? Maybe I got confused between the different people who were talking, but I don’t believe he said this. The interviewer asked: IF you were going to eliminate mosquitoes, how would you do it? to which he responded about genetic changes and so on. He also acknowledged that mosquitoes are a food source for birds etc. but that they are not the only food source (a weak response, but technically true). Finally, he also acknowledged at some point that there could be unforeseen consequences, although that didn’t seem to discourage him very much. On the whole, it seemed to me that the interview pretty much covered all your points, although perhaps not with the emphasis you would have liked.
I don’t see that as a big deal. I re-listened to the beginning of the interview and Conlon says that mosquitos “don’t occupy an unassailable niche in the eco-system. If they were gone, it would hiccup for a bit then adjust.”
Yes he says more than that simple statement, but it was enough to get me thinking and start the thread.
ETA: Some Scientists Say it's Time to Get Rid of Mosquitoes | The Takeaway | WNYC
I doubt genetic engineering will be able at least in the foreseeable future to eradicated A. egyptii, but drastically lowering populations in concert with other measures should aid greatly in controlling Zika and other viruses.
Meantime the usual loons are busy trying to stir up FUD about releasing genetically engineered mosquitoes, blaming the Zika outbreak on them (some are trying to block their release in southern parts of the U.S. because of “unforeseen consequences” (like fewer people getting sick, dying and having permanent complications).
Mosquitoes fill a very important roll in the food chain. They are the first life form to arrive in a new body of water. They are eaten by nearly every small insect, fish, mammal, or bird I can think of that hangs around water. The bio mass of larva in a small pond is enormous. I don’t think we could do without them.
That was the basis for my OP question, and from a scientific approach to eco-systems, if what you say is true, that would be a concern. But, per mozchron’s links and info, it sounds like “complete eradication” is not the way to think about it. It sounds like it is more like “temporary, local suppression” of a species.
+1
Flying mosquitoes are also an important food source for small animals. I have made trips to photograph insects and the like in the Amazon, Belize and Costa Rica. The best time for photography in the jungle is at night. I’ve noticed that on nights that there are a lot of mosquitoes, there are critters all over the place. There are frogs, spiders, whip scorpions, insects everywhere. It can be quite overwhelming (and the mosquitoes don’t help). But on nights in locations without many mosquitoes, the jungle seems quiet, and you have to search to find things.
While I don’t know this for a fact, I suspect here in the Deep South skeeters are a very significant food supply, if not the major one for the local bats.
Then again the main advantage of bats around here is that they eat skeeters in large volumes…
Most bats around here are just hanging on as is. Lack of skeeters would probably be pretty bad for the bats.
Here is an article on this from Gizmodo, touching on a couple of approaches, including the Wolbachia approach as well as the one being done by Oxytec, who is again interviewed, along with Tony James from UC Irvine.
Look, I know nothing about genetic modification, so I’m just spitballing here.
But we don’t hate mosquitoes because they exist. We hate them because the bite us. And they bite us to get the protein they need to reproduce.
While we’re bioengineering mosquitoes to die off and stop bothering us, even at the cost of losing their contribution to the ecosystem…how hard would it be to bioengineer them to reproduce without needing a meal of blood?
Basically make them vegan mosquitoes?
Then they can continue their role as food animals for many species, but without bothering humans or other animals or making us sick? No more malaria, Zika, dangue, West Nile, etc?
Whatever methodology you want, we still need to be preparing for a massive suppression of these mosquitoes. We don’t need to eradicate them, we need to cut the density of the transmission vector, and we need to do it before the effect on human lives is too great. The mosquitoes and bats and little water critters will survive that. If this all turns out to be more scare than substance we can leave the filthy blood suckers alone.
Wouldn’t this be specific species of mosquito-* Aedes Aegypti *and Aedes Anopheles in particular, not ALL mosquitoes?
Perhaps the ecosystem could absorb the loss of the specific species that afflict mankind, without necessarily having terrible consequences.
Is this true? I’m very anti-mosquito so I try to do as much as I can to make my property as inhospitable for them as is possible. I’ve looked into attracting insectivores but was given the impression that none of them (bats included) will eat a significant amount of mosquitoes.
In your case bat houses are probably a good idea.
Bat Conservation International probably has plans and all the info you need.
If I wasn’t so damn lazy I’d have a few bat houses up myself.
Mosquitoes are a particularly unfortunate pest in place like Hawaii where they are an invasive species.
Let’s remember that not all species of mosquito bite (by the way, only females bite, when they are about to lay eggs and need some extra protein…)
While the biomass of most mosquitoes is not really that significant to have any animal depend on them for feeding, just getting rid of, say, malaria-spreading anopheles would mean that their niche would easily be occupied by any other type of mosquito or small insect with no problem.
We all know the skeeters pass dieseases but do they also pass along antibodies helping to build resistance in a wide range of animals?
I read recently about a slightly different genetic modification that would spread through the mosquito population and make them immune to the malaria bacterium, without destroying the mosquito(e)s themselves. Again the opposition was based on genetic modification, not the ecological effects of extincting malaria.
Have there been any ecological effects of the disappearance of smallpox?
And what do knowledgeable people think of the possibility of making mosquito(e)s immune to zika? To dengue?
Well, there are a metric shit-ton more humans around, so yes.
They’re immune enough now to spread the diseases. They’d need to be unable to pass the disease, which is going to be tough to stop in a blood sucking insect.
And Zika can be transmitted through human sexual contact, so we have a much bigger problem than mosquitoes to worry about.
Wouldn’t they have to inject a person with something other than a mild anticoagulant and contamination from other critters’ blood for that to work? Do they?