Mosquito Control Then, Now, and in the Futurei
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 10(4):574_5g4,lg94 copyright @ 1994 by the American Mosquito control Association. Inc. MOSQUITO CONTROL THEN, NOW, AND IN THE FUTUREI MIR S. MULLA Department of Entomology, Universityof California, Riverside,CA g2S2l ABSTRACT. This is a memorial lecture honoring the late Professor Stanley B. Freeborn of the University of California. In the spirit of his life-long academicand researchintereits in mosquitoesand mosquito-bome diseases,I am presentinghere the evolution ofvector control technology,especially that pertaining to mosquitoesand mosquito-bome diseasesduring the 20th century. Vector controi technology in the first half ofthis century was relatively simple, utilizing sourcereduction, larvivorous fish, petroleum hydrocarbon oils, and some simple synthetic and botanical materials. During the 2nd half of this century, however, various classesof synthetic organic chemicals, improved petroleum oil formulations, insect growth regulators,synthetic pyrethroids, and microbial control agentswere developedand employed in mosquito control and control ofother disease-vectoringinsects. Among thesegroups ofcontrol agents, petroleum oil formulations have endured to be usedthrough the whole century. It is likely that petroleum oil formulations, insect growth regulators, and microbial control agents will provide the main thrust againstvectors at least during the first quarter ofthe 2lst century. It is also possiblethat effectivetools through the development of vaccinesand molecular entomology techniquesmight become available for the control ofvectors and vector-borne diseasesduring this period ofthe 2lst century. INTRODUCTION or most of his professionalaccomplishments but instead will focus It is indeed my distinct pleasureto deliver this attention on his contributions to our knowledgeof mosquitoes memorial lecture, honoring the late Professor and their control and his role as teacher researcher. StanleyB. Freeborn,one ofthe distinguisheden- and tomologists and culicidologistswho contributed immensely to our knowledgeof mosquitoes and their control. He not only was a recognizedschol- STANLEY B. FREEBORN ar but also proved to be an effective and dedi- (THE HONOREE) cated teacher, instructing undergraduate and StanleyBarron Freeborn was born in Hudson, graduate students with great enthusiasm. To- Massachusettson DecemberI l, l89l and died ward the end ofhis career,Dr. Freeborn served on July 17, 1960 at Davis, California. He re- with distinction as Provost and then Chancellor ceived the B.Sc. degreefrom MassachusettsAg- of California at Davis. at the University ricultural Collegein l9 I 4 and the Ph.D. in 1924 During my career,I had very little overlap with from Amherst College.The subject of his thesis Upon my arrival as a graduatestudent Freeborn. was the classicalwork, "Mosquitoes of Califor- the of California, Berkeleyin 1952, at University nia." All of his career, with the exception of 2 he had already moved to the Davis campus wartime leaves, was spent at the University of (known as the Farm or Cal Aggiesin those days), California (UC). He started as an instructor in and from there he enteredthe administrative ser- entomology at the University of California, vices. Therefore, whatever biographical infor- Berkeleyin 1914, becamean assistantto Pro- mation I presenthere was gatheredfrom the lit- fessorWilliam B. Herms in 1916,and attained gainedfrom thosewho had professional eratureor the rank of Professorand Entomologistin 1932. and personalcontacts with him (e.g.,Thomas H. Aitken (1939) named Anophelesmaculipennis Aitken, Bruce F. Eldridge, William C. Reeves, G. collected at Davis, California in his and Robert K. Washino). I will attempt to give freeborni honor. This important malaria vector is now a briefbiographical sketch ofhis career,accom- known as An. rl Aitken on the west coast. plishments,and contributions. Becausetime does freebon From 1924 to 1935,he servedas Chairman of not permit me to presenta complete recognition the Division of Entomology at Davis and then contributions he made in the of all significant becameAssistant to the Dean of the College of research,teaching and service. area ofscientific Agriculture at Berkeley,and 2 years later he be- touch upon his personallife I will not attempt to came Assistant Dean and Assistant Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station. In 1952,he was appointed as the first Provost of the UC Davis Campus,and in 1958 he becameChan- t Memorial l-ecture was presented at the The AMCA scientist, American and California Mosquito and Vector Control cellor there. To honor this eminent Associations Joint Meeting (AMCA 60th, CMVCA teacher, and administrator, the University of 62nd) held April 9-14, 1994, San Diego, California, California bestowed the honorary degree of USA. L.L.D. upon him and named the Student Center 5't4 JounNlr or rHr Arr.tsRIcANMosqurro Coxrnor AssocrerroN Vol. 10,No.4 Table l. Mosquito speciesincluded in the will not be too different from programs else- publications of L. O. Howard (1902), Freeborn where. It should be remembered that a consid- (1926),and Freebornand Brookman (1943). erableamount ofvector control researchwas also carried out by other universities, the Centersfor DiseaseControl, U.S. Department ofAgriculture mosquitoes recorded laboratories, and others. Freeborn and VECTOR CONTROL DURING THE Brookman EARLY 2OTH CENTURY How- Freeborn (1e43) ard (1926) Pacific Vector control researchand mosquito control (1902) Cali- coast activities in particular beganabout a century ago. Genus USA fornia states In the first quarter of the 20th century, mosquito control activities were basedprimarily on source Aedes I l5 23 reduction, the use of petroleum oils (kerosene), Anopheles J 4 4 and the promotion of guppies and other fish Conchyliastes 2 (Howard 1892, l9O2). These tactics (Table 2), Culex 9 with some modification, continued for 3 or 4 Culiseta I 7 5 decades.Freeborn and Atsatt (1918) provided Mansonia I evidence for mode of action of larviciding oil Megarhinus 3 mixtures. Freeborn also was involved in 1922 in Orthopodomia I the promotion of biological control agents and Psorophora I was overseeingthe first importation and stocking _' Stegomyia 2 of Gambusia in the Chico area of California Theobaldia 4 (Herms 1949).He was the first person involved Toxorhynchites I in the importation, stocking, and evaluation of _ Uranotaenia I I larvivorous fish in mosquito control in Califor- Total 26 32 44 nia. VECTOR CONTROL DURING THE Association served as its Mosquito Control and 2ND OF THE president 1935.According Nowell's (1983) QUARTER in to 2OTH CENTURY index to the first 50 annual conferencesof the California Mosquito and Vector Control Asso- Vector control technologyemphasizing source ciation (1930-82),there are 23 entriesfor Free- reduction and application of oils and botanical born during this period. Titles of his presenta- preparation (Table 2) continued into the 2nd tions represented diverse areas of research, quarter of the presentcentury. However, a num- administration, program development, and op- ber of other strategiesaimed at larval and adult erational programs for mosquitoes and mosqui- control were added to the arsenalagainst disease to-borne diseases.Some of the topics covered vectors and pests (Table 3). A comprehensive included mosquito control in California and treatment of this technology was reported by abroad, outbreaksof malaria in California, iden- Herms and Gray (1944)in a book that provided tification of mosquitoes, mosquito migrations, a detailed description and analysisofvector con- and other problems pertaining to mosquitoes and trol technologybased on laws leading to the for- mosquito control programs. mation of mosquito abatementagencies. Source From his biographical sketchand scientific ac- reduction and naturalistic and biological control complishments,it is clear that Stanley Freeborn methodologies were promoted as the primary line had keen interest in mosquitoes and that his re- of defense.Oiling and the use of chemical lar- search activity covered both basic and applied vicides and adulticides were considered as an fields. The major thrust of his researchactivities adjunct to the more peffnanent and lasting strat- was directed toward vector control and vector- egiesemployed. Herms and Gray (1944) alluded borne diseases.In the spirit of his interest in to the problem of pest mosquitoes after inter- vector control programs, I now briefly present ruption of disease transmission and recom- the progressionand evolution of vector control mended reduction or elimination of pestiferous technologiesfrom the past into the present and speciesfor the overall comfort and well-being of also project the trends into the near future. Be- the public. The need for the abatement of pes- causeof Freeborn'sinvolvement and association tiferous vectors (speciesserving as diseasevec- with California, I will touch primarily upon vec- tors, as well as those which are pestiferous) is tor control methodologies in California, which even more important today in developed areas, 577 DEcBrvrnEr1994 Mel'roRrAL Lecrunr I Table 3. Mosquito control technology I .E employed during the 2nd quarter of the 20th -lI century and beYond.t AI oo9 r-l I Types of major mosquito control tactics o O\l C) ()(ll^ manage- lii d q) l. Source reduction, environmental kl ;.E=.E ment fitl tl Drainage and reclamation of freshwaterand EeEgg saltwater marshes >' <E<O,! Filling, pumping, flushing Speciessanitation o o q) f 2. Oils and larvicides