Next Article in Journal
Molecular Data Confirm Interspecific Limits of Four Alloxysta and One Phaenoglyphis Species of Parasitic Wasps within the Subfamily Charipinae (Cynipoidea: Figitidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptomic Insights into Host Metabolism and Immunity Changes after Parasitization by Leptopilina myrica
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/insects15050353
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Poland: An Update of Species Diversity and Current Challenges

by
Piotr Jawień
1,*,
Wolf Peter Pfitzner
2,
Francis Schaffner
3 and
Dorota Kiewra
1
1
Department of Microbial Ecology and Acaroentomology, University of Wroclaw, Przybyszewskiego Str. 63, 51-148 Wrocław, Poland
2
KABS e. V., Georg-Peter-Süß Str. 3, 67346 Speyer, Germany
3
Francis Schaffner Consultancy, Lörracherstrasse 50, 4125 Riehen, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2024, 15(5), 353; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15050353
Submission received: 15 March 2024 / Revised: 8 May 2024 / Accepted: 10 May 2024 / Published: 14 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Systematics, Phylogeny and Evolution)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

This article presents the current state of knowledge of mosquito species occurring in Poland. The current work lists the presence of 51 species of mosquitoes from five genera: Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Culiseta, and Culex, compared to 47 species recorded in works published before 2000. Aspects of the ecology and biology of the Polish mosquito fauna, with particular emphasis on newly recorded species, are discussed.

Abstract

This article presents the current state of knowledge of mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae) occurring in Poland. In comparison to the most recently published checklists (1999 and 2007), which listed 47 mosquito species, four species (Aedes japonicus, Anopheles daciae, Anopheles hyrcanus, and Anopheles petragnani) are added to the Polish fauna. Our new checklist of Polish mosquito fauna includes 51 species of mosquitoes from five genera: Aedes (30), Anopheles (8), Coquillettidia (1), Culiseta (7), and Culex (5). Aspects of the ecology and biology of the Polish mosquito fauna, with particular emphasis on newly recorded species, are discussed.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) are among the most important vectors of public health importance. Their enormous vector potential for infectious and potentially lethal pathogens and parasites makes them the most important blood-feeding arthropods in the world. Climate and land-use changes, globalization, and intensive transportation of humans and goods influence the spread of mosquitoes and pathogens, which results in expanding emerging or re-emerging diseases around the world [1,2,3]. Knowledge of the presence and current range of mosquito species occurrence in a given area is therefore crucial to assessing the potential risk to human and animal health. This paper aims to present an up-to-date state of knowledge of the mosquito fauna in Poland. The previous checklist of mosquito species occurring in Poland was published at the end of the 20th century by Kubica-Biernat [4], who listed in her publication 47 mosquito species reported from 223 identifiable sites in Poland. The same list of 47 species was also given by Wegner in 2007 [5].

2. Current Knowledge

The knowledge of the distribution of Culicidae in Poland still remains fragmentary because regular monitoring of the presence of mosquito species is limited to only a few areas. Additionally, some data on mosquito species occurrence are included in papers concerning biocontrol [6,7,8], evening activity of synanthropic species [9], factors influencing the distribution of floodwater mosquito eggs [8], and the detection of pathogens [10,11,12,13].
Original articles on the occurrence of mosquitoes in Poland published after 2000 come from 15 out of 16 voivodeships (Figure 1, Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) and concern mostly data from urban areas, including Wrocław [5,10,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], Gdańsk, Gdynia, Sopot [21], Krynica Morska [22], Warsaw [23], Poznań [24], and Świnoujście [25]. Additionally, based on literature data, a review of species occurring in five Polish towns (Szczecin, Świnoujście, Gdańsk, Warszawa, Wrocław) was published [26]. Scarce data concern protected areas such as the Narew National Park [27] and the Iława Lakeland Landscape Park [28]. Finally, data on mosquito distribution come from monitoring data from south regions of Poland published by the ECDC [29] and collected during a VectorNet capacity-building program [30].
In recent years, records of mosquito species newly found in Poland have been published. Species not mentioned in the review by Kubica-Biernat [4] and described in original papers published after 2000 include three species of Anopheles: An. hyrcanus [20], An. daciae [19], and An. petragnani [30]. Additionally, in 2023, Ae. japonicus was found in southern Poland [29,30].
The unequivocal evidence of An. daciae’s presence in Poland was shown for the first time by Rydzanicz et al. [19]. They collected adult mosquitoes between July and September 2015 in the Wrocław area and applied a rapid PCR-RFLP assay on specimens of the Maculipennis Complex, resulting in the unambiguous identification of An. daciae, An. messeae, and An. maculipennis sensu stricto (s.s.). The potential occurrence of An. daciae was also suggested earlier by Kubica-Biernat and Kowalska-Ulczyńska [31] in north and north-eastern Poland (the voivodeships of Pomorskie, Warmińsko-Mazurskie, and Podlaskie). Here, An. maculipennis s.s. and the taxon An. messeae/daciae were identified among over a thousand mosquito specimens of the Maculipennis Complex. Anopheles messeae and An. daciae are morphologically and genetically almost similar, which challenges species identification. Both species prefer stagnant water bodies with unpolluted water on the banks of rivers and lakes with abundant submerged vegetation, ponds, and ditches, as well as larger water bodies in floodplains (Table 4). Anopheles daciae was originally distinguished from An. messeae based on five nucleotide substitutions in its rDNA internal transcribed spacer 2 [32]. Anopheles daciae occurs in Eurasia, including countries neighboring Poland. It was found in Germany [33,34,35,36], Czechia, and Slovakia [37,38], as well as in Finland [39] and Russia [40,41].
The first report on the appearance of An. hyrcanus in Poland comes from Wrocław (southwest Poland), where this species was identified among mosquitoes collected in the years 2019–2020 [20]. The identification of a well-established population of An. hyrcanus in Wrocław [20] suggests an increase in the range of this species because the described place of its occurrence is the most northern localization in Europe. Anopheles hyrcanus sensu lato is considered to be a species complex that includes about 30 species in the Palearctic and Oriental regions [42,43]. In the Wrocław area, An. hyrcanus s.s. was discovered in wetlands containing numerous canals and permanent reservoirs situated in the valleys of the Odra and Oława rivers. This region is a natural area covered with riparian forests where white willow (Salix alba) and white poplar (Populus alba) are the dominant species. It is also recognized as a protected region under the European network of Natura 2000 areas and is covered by a sanitary protection zone [14]. The banks of canals, lakes, and wet areas are covered with marsh vegetation—reeds and sedge communities with common sedge (Carex fusca), sharp sedge (Carex gracilis), common calamus (Acorus calamus), and common reed (Phragmites australis). The preference of habitat for An. hyrcanus in Wrocław is in line with data presented by Becker et al. [3], who described that the larvae of An. hyrcanus prefer to develop in more or less clear, sun-exposed water bodies with rich vegetation. The larvae of An. hyrcanus mosquitoes can be found in permanent reservoirs and slowly flowing channels that have rich riparian plants (Table 4). The presence of An. hyrcanus was documented in many European countries, including France [44], Croatia, Hungary, Austria [45], Czechia, Slovakia, Russia [43,46,47], Romania, Serbia [48], Italy [49], and Spain [44].
Anopheles petragnani was very recently found for the first time in Poland in the Kielce Upland [30]. Larvae were collected in artificial water reservoirs (metal wadies) in allotment gardens in Kielce. The species is a sibling species of Anopheles claviger s.s., whose morphological differentiation is only possible on the basis of subtle differences in the structure of eggs and larvae [50,51]. PCR methods are used to unambiguously distinguish these species [52]. Anopheles petragnani is distributed in the western Mediterranean [3], whose larvae tolerate higher water temperatures than An. claviger s.s. [50]. It is a zoophilic species capable of autogenous reproduction. In the past, it was sporadically recorded in southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, southern France, Italy, and North Africa) and more recently in Germany [51] and Luxembourg [53]. It does not play any role in pathogen transmission [3].
Aedes japonicus was found in the southern part of Poland during a capacity building program organized by ECDC [29,30]. All positive records are from southern regions close to the border of Czechia and Slovakia. In Czechia Ae. japonicus was found in 2021, close to the Czech–German and Czech–Austrian border [54] and recently in the north of the country [30]. In Slovakia, the first records of Ae. japonicus were found in 2020 in a few places localized at border crossings with Austria and Hungary and in the urban and rural zones of five major cities [55]. In Germany, Ae. japonicus was found for the first time in 2008 in the south German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg [56,57,58] and is now widespread over Germany [59]. Aedes japonicus is a species native to Asia (Korea, Japan, Taiwan, southern China, and south-eastern Siberia), and it is recognized as the third invasive mosquito species reported in Europe, after Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti [2].
The mosquito species Ae. rossicus appears here for the first time at the species rank in a Polish checklist, while it was listed as a subspecies of Ae. esoensis in the review of Kubica-Biernat [4]. Indeed, this taxon is nowadays recognized as a valid species [60]. In recent two decades, the presence of Ae. rossicus was noted in Warsaw (Wilanów) in a study that listed 33 mosquito species (26 species recorded as larvae and 30 as adults) recorded in the years 2001–2009 in material that comprised more than 11,000 individuals, including larvae and adults of Ae. rossicus [23]. Furthermore, Ae. rossicus was recorded in Warsaw for the first time. Aedes rossicus is a floodwater mosquito that lays eggs on the ground that is frequently flooded; it prefers small temporary water bodies, inundation areas of river valleys, and swampy woodlands with acid waters (Table 4). The presence of Ae. rossicus was also confirmed in other European countries, including Sweden [61], France [62], Germany [63], Czechia [64], and Russia [60,65].
Among the 47 mosquito species listed by Kubica-Biernat [4], during the last two decades, the presence of 8 species was not confirmed: Ae. detritus, Ae. hexodontus, Ae. nigripes, Ae. pionips, Ae. pullatus, An. atroparvus, Cs. fumipennis, and Cs. subochrea (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). The occurrence of Ae. geminus was recently confirmed [20] in Lower Silesia [30]. The smaller number of mosquito species identified in recent years is most likely the result of the lack of monitoring in most areas of Poland and might not be related to the disappearance of species. It is worth emphasizing that the mosquito fauna in Poland includes species with different habitat preferences (Table 4). For development, they prefer different types of water bodies (e.g., clear or highly polluted); some species use inland brackish marshes and other snow-melt ponds [3,8,66,67]. They can hatch in wild and synanthropic areas, in permanent and temporary water bodies, and in different types of water bodies along rivers, including flooded areas in river valleys. Species also differ in their development time (spring—most of them, or summer), number of generations (mono- or polycyclic), as well as host feeding preferences (anthropo- or zoophilic), and vector potential. Thus, mosquito fauna studies should cover diverse environments and different geographical areas to be comprehensive.

3. Medical Importance

Among the mosquito species found in Poland, 40% are potential or documented vectors of pathogens (Table 4) [2,20,26,68]. These species can transmit malaria plasmodia (currently in Poland, only imported malaria cases are reported), arboviruses, or zoonotic parasites. Among them, mosquito species recorded in Poland, Ae. vexans and Cx. pipiens s.l. are of particular importance because they are widespread throughout the country and have documented vector roles. They are multi-voltine species that can thrive in large numbers under favorable conditions.
Aedes vexans is a floodwater species common in the Holarctic region, showing high abundance in Eastern Europe [3]. It thrives in a variety of habitats, particularly in rural areas, and is commonly found in floodplains of river valleys. Like many floodplain mosquitoes, Ae. vexans prefer to lay eggs on the ground of temporary or semi-permanent pools that are prone to seasonal flooding. Their eggs enter a state of diapause, which allows them to survive longer periods of drought before hatching in large numbers after floods. Aedes vexans has an extremely short aquatic phase in summer (6–7 days), which leads to a rapid increase in population density. Adult females are known for aggressive biting behavior, showing little host specificity among mammals and humans. This feature is important for the potential transmission of pathogens. In regions such as North America and Europe, Ae. vexans transmits a variety of arboviruses, including West Nile virus (WNV), snow hare virus (SSHV), Jamestown Canyon virus (JCV), Tahyna virus (TAHV), and Batai virus (BATV). In Africa, Ae. vexans is considered one of the main vectors of the Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV). Experimental studies have confirmed its ability to transmit RVFV in both African and American populations [68,69].
The widespread distribution and the preference for urban environments, close to people make Cx. pipiens a significant concern for public health worldwide [68,70,71,72,73]. This species complex is known for transmitting pathogens such as WNV, Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV), St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV), Sindbis virus (SINV), Usutu virus (USUV), BATV, and filarial worms such as Dirofilaria repens or Dirofilaria immitis [10].
From a medical point of view, the emergence of invasive mosquito species may be of particular importance because some of them play a key role in the spread of many mosquito-borne diseases worldwide [2]. In Europe, the most important invasive mosquito species include: Ae. albopictus, Ae. aegypti, Ae. japonicus, and Ae. koreicus. In Poland, so far only the presence of Ae. japonicus has been confirmed; however, the presence of other invasive species (Ae. albopictus, Ae. koreicus) is increasingly noted in countries bordering Poland [74,75,76,77]. Aedes japonicus, native to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, southern China, and parts of Russia, did spread to North America and Central Europe. Aedes japonicus shows early emergence and a longer activity season compared to other invasive species, as well as the ability to disperse over long distances and to withstand lower temperatures. However, it cannot tolerate aquatic habitats exceeding 30 °C, limiting its spread in Southern Europe. Similarly to Ae. albopictus, it produces cold-resistant eggs and feeds on mammals primarily. It adapts well to various environments, including urban areas with artificial containers, but prefers vegetation-rich suburban or rural settings and agricultural environments. Its minimal habitat requirements and tolerance to organic matter facilitate its spread even in eutrophic and polluted water basins. Aedes japonicus has been linked to outbreaks of the Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) in Asia and to La Crosse virus and WNV cycles in North America [59]. Its presence in new areas has led to an increase in its own abundance and the displacement or reduction in native mosquitoes, which may affect mosquito diversity as well as the epidemiology of associated arboviruses. Although not very widespread yet, there is concern that the range and abundance of this species will expand in Poland [78].
The southern part of Poland appears to be suitable for the emergence of further invasive mosquito species due to higher average temperatures than in other areas of the country and the proximity of invasive mosquito populations in neighboring countries. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously monitor and survey mosquito species composition along known transmission routes—motorways, airports, etc. Understanding the biology and ecology of native and invasive mosquito species is essential for developing strategies to prevent and control the spread of mosquito-borne diseases. Furthermore, the rapid process of globalization, coupled with climate change, which affects mosquito populations, highlights the need for capacities for applying effective vector control measures to mitigate pathogen transmission.

4. Conclusions

The current checklist of mosquito species in Poland includes 51 species of five genera: Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Culiseta, and Culex. It is worth emphasizing that two first records (An. daciae and An. hyrcanus) were located in Wrocław—an area under regular mosquito monitoring [19,20]. In addition, Ae. japonicus was found to be well established in southern Poland in seven voivodships, in 2023, after remaining undetected for several years, probably due to the lack of earlier monitoring in these areas [30]. Surveys conducted in 2023 also resulted in the identification of An. petragnani in central Poland, in the Kielce Upland [30]. Both species were found in the country for the first time ever. Considering the ecological diversity of mosquito species occurring in Poland, and the limited area of mosquito fauna monitoring conducted in recent years, the accurate knowledge of the distribution of individual mosquito species in Poland requires further, comprehensive research to be conducted throughout the country. Research conducted during the last few decades focused mainly on urban areas. It would be worthwhile in the future to extend monitoring and research of the mosquito fauna to rural and natural areas. Moreover, due to the emergence of invasive species such as Ae. japonicus, Ae. albopictus, and Ae. koreicus in countries bordering Poland [74,75,76,77], it seems necessary to continue to track changes at the border of their range of occurrence and further investigate the possible occurrence of invasive mosquito species in Poland.
Globalization and climate change around the world and in Europe will favor the further spread of mosquitoes to new areas. Invasive species such as Ae. albopictus are a good example. The emergence of additional mosquito species raises challenges in terms of eliminating introduced specimens or suppressing established populations over larger areas. Additionally, invasive species are often competent vectors of disease pathogens that can emerge subsequently. Preventing or controlling mosquito-borne diseases will be a major challenge for the health services of many countries, not least for Poland, which has little mosquito control experience and capacity and is unprepared for facing mosquito-borne diseases.
Table 1. The occurrence of Aedes mosquitoes in Poland.
Table 1. The occurrence of Aedes mosquitoes in Poland.
Country/
Voivodeship		AuthorsAe. annulipesAe. behningiAe. cantansAe. caspiusAe. cataphyllaAe. cinereusAe. communisAe. cypriusAe. detritusAe. diantaeusAe. dorsalisAe euedesAe. excruciansAe. flavescensAe. geminusAe. geniculatusAe. hexodontusAe. intrudensAe. japonicusAe. leucomelasAe. nigrinusAe. nigripesAe. pionipsAe. pullatusAe. punctorAe. ripariusAe. rossicusAe. rusticusAe. sticticusAe. vexans
Published until 1999
Poland[4]++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
Published after 2000
Wielkopolskie[11]+ + + + ++
[24]+ + ++
[13]+ + + + ++
Dolnośląskie[14] + + + ++
[15] + + + ++
[79]+ +++++ + + + + ++
[19]+ ++ + ++
[8] + +
[7] + +
[17] + +
[18] ++ + ++
[10] ++ + ++
[20]+ + * + *+ + ++
[30] + + +
Mazowieckie[23]+ ++++++ +++++ + + ++ ++++++
[30] +
Podlaskie[27]+ + +++ +++ + + ++ + +
Pomorskie[80]+ +++++ + + + ++ + ++
[21]+ +++++ + + + + ++
[22]+ ++ + + + + + +
Warmińsko-Mazurskie[81]+ + +++ + ++ + + + ++
[28]++++ **+++ + **+++ + + ++ ++ ++
Zachodniopomorskie[25]+ ++ ++ + ++
Łódzkie[30]+ *** + *** + * + * + +
Lubelskie[30] ++
Małopolskie[30] + * ++ + +
Opolskie[30] + + +
Podkarpackie[30] +
Śląskie[30]+ *** + *** + * + + ++
Świętokrzyskie[30]+ *** + *** +
* Species identified as Aedes cinereus/geminus; ** species identified as Aedes caspius/dorsalis; *** species identified as Aedes annulipes/cantans.
Table 2. The occurrence of Anopheles mosquitoes in Poland.
Table 2. The occurrence of Anopheles mosquitoes in Poland.
Country/VoivodeshipAuthorsAn. atroparvusAn. claviger s.s.An. daciaeAn. hyrcanusAn. maculipennis s.l. #An. maculipennis s.s.An. messeaeAn. plumbeusAn. petragnani
Published until 1999
Poland[4]++ ++++
Published after 2000
Wielkopolskie[13] +
Dolnośląskie[14] +
[15] +
[79] +
[18] +
[19] ++ ++++
[10] + +
[82] +
[20] + ** ++ +
[30] + ** + +
Mazowieckie[23] + + +
[30] +
Podlaskie[31] + * ++ *
[27] +
Pomorskie[80] + +
[31] + * ++ *
[21] + +
[50] +
Warmińsko-Mazurskie[81] + + +
[28] + + ++
[31] + * ++ *
Zachodniopomorskie[25] +
Łódzkie[30] + + +
Lubelskie[30] + + +
Małopolskie[30] ++ + +
Opolskie[30] +
Podkarpackie[30] + +
Śląskie[30] + ++
Świętokrzyskie[30] +
* Species identified as An. messeae/daciae; ** species identified as Anopheles claviger/Anopheles petragnani; # the complex of several species not distinguished in many works.
Table 3. The occurrence of Coquillettidia, Culiseta, and Culex mosquitoes in Poland.
Table 3. The occurrence of Coquillettidia, Culiseta, and Culex mosquitoes in Poland.
Country/VoivodeshipAuthorsCq. richiardiiCs. alaskaensisCs. annulataCs. fumipennisCs. glaphyropteraCs. morsitansCs. ochropteraCs. subochreaCx. hortensisCx. modestusCx. pipiens s.l.Cx. territansCx. torrentium
Published until 1999
Poland[4]+++++++++++ *++
Published after 2000
Wielkopolskie[11]+
[24]+
[12]+ + * +
[13]+ + *+
[30] + + **
Dolnośląskie[14] + + *
[15] + + *
[9] + + *
[79]+++ +
[66] + * +
[19]+ + + * +
[6] +
[16] + ** + **
[17] +
[18] + + * +
[83] + * +
[10]+ + + ** + **
[82] + * +
[20]+ + + ** + **
[30] + +, + **++ **
Mazowieckie[23]+++ + ++++
[30] + + +, + ** + **
Podlaskie[27]+++ + *++
Pomorskie[80]+++ + + *+
[21]+ + + + *++
[22] + + +
Warmińsko-Mazurskie[81]+++ + + *++
[28]+++ ++ + *++
Zachodniopomorskie[25]+ + ++ ** + **
Łódzkie[30] + +, + **++ **
Lubelskie[30] + +, + **++ **
Małopolskie[30] + +, + ** +, + **
Opolskie[30] + + +
Podkarpackie[30] + +, + ** + **
Śląskie[30]+ + **++ **
Świętokrzyskie[30] +, + ** + **
* Cx. pipiens without recognition of biotype; ** Culex pipiens/torrentium.
Table 4. Mosquito species found in Polish fauna—their characteristics and habitat preferences [3,67].
Table 4. Mosquito species found in Polish fauna—their characteristics and habitat preferences [3,67].
No.SpeciesNumber of GenerationsEmerging PeriodHost PreferenceVector PotentialHabitat Preferences [3,67]
1.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) annulipes (Meigen, 1830)MSpA+open meadow pools, forest edges, and deciduous forests, semipermanent reservoirs with leaf detritus
2.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) behningi (Martini, 1926)MSmA flooded areas on river valleys
3.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) cantans (Meigen, 1818)MSpA + open permanent or semipermanent meadow pools, deciduous or mixed forest reservoirs with scarce aquatic vegetation and layer of leaves on the bottom
4.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) caspius (Pallas, 1771)PSmA + inland salt marshes, fresh waters, coastal marshes and rock holes, open or shaded waters, permanent or temporary snow-melt water bodies, and after floods, river floodplains
5.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) cataphylla Dyar, 1916MSpA, Z forest pools in swampy woodlands, reservoirs with dead leaves on the bottom, inundated meadows, neutral to alkaline water
6.Aedes (Aedes) cinereus Meigen, 1818PSpA + semipermanent water bodies, flood plains, sedge marshes with Sphagnum sp., bogs, lakes covered by emerged vegetation, woodland pools
7.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) communis (De Geer, 1776)MSpZ snow-melt forest reservoirs, acidic waters, ditches, and reservoirs with dead leaves on the bottom
8.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) cyprius Ludlow, 1920MSpZ + semipermanent reservoirs along inundated river shores, snow-melt pools
9.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) detritus (Haliday, 1833)MSpA meadows, reservoirs with an exceptionally high content of salinity, brackish waters, and coastal marshes, semipermanent ponds with Salicornia sp. and Tamarix sp. marshes, stagnant drainage channels with saline water
10.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) diantaeus (Howard, Dyar and Knab, 1913)MSpZ temporary open water bodies formed after snow-melt with dead leaves at the bottom, shaded ditches, and pools in mixed forests
11.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) dorsalis (Meigen, 1830)PSpA + small open water bodies, swamps, permanent and temporary water reservoirs on inland pastures formed by melted snow, floods, rainfall or groundwater, roadside water bodies, and drainage ditches, also saline waters
12.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) euedes Howard, Dyar and Knab, 1913MSpA open permanent or semipermanent meadow pools, deciduous or mixed forest reservoirs with scarce aquatic vegetation and layer of leaves on the bottom
13.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) excrucians (Walker, 1856)MSpA shaded permanent water bodies, open semi-permanent or permanent reservoirs with vegetation like Typha sp. or Carex sp., mixed forests
14.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) flavescens (Müller, 1764)MSpA reeded areas of water bodies, brackish marshes along coasts, shaded temporary reservoirs in floodplains, neutral to slightly alkaline water, and a wide range of salinity
15.Aedes (Aedes) geminus Peus, 1970PSpA semipermanent water bodies, flood plains, sedge marshes with Sphagnum sp., bogs, lakes covered by emerged vegetation, woodland pools
16.Aedes (Dahliana) geniculatus (Olivier, 1791)PSpA + deciduous forests, parks, open tree stumps, tree holes of deciduous trees
17.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) hexodontus Dyar, 1916MSpA oligotrophic snow-melt ponds with or without vegetation
18.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) intrudens (Dyar, 1919)MSpA temporary reservoirs in forests with dead leaves at the bottom, floodplains and grassy or snow-melt water pools
19.Aedes (Hulecoeteomyia) japonicus (Theobald, 1901)PSpA + small natural and artificial water reservoirs like three holes, rock pools, vases, tins, drums, tires, buckets, breeding sites which are rich in organic matter
20.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) leucomelas (Meigen, 1804)MSpA, Z flooded meadows and reeded areas, snow-melt reservoirs on forest edges, slightly saline water, and slightly acid to alkaline waters
21.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) nigrinus (Eckstein, 1918)PSpZ flooded meadows in river valleys
22.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) nigripes (Zetterstedt, 1838)MSpA, Z snow-melt ponds, willow, and birch shrub marches, oligotrophic reservoirs, shallow puddles surrounded by Carex sp.
23.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pionips (Dyar, 1919)MSpA snow-melt ponds in boggy forests
24.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pullatus (Coquillett, 1904)MSmZ small clear water snow-melt reservoirs, boggy holes, water reservoirs without vegetation or with rocky bottom in mountainous regions
25.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) punctor (Kirby, 1837)PSpZ snow-melt ponds in swampy forests, meadows, boggy waters, acidic reservoirs with Sphagnum sp.
26.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) riparius (Dyar and Knab, 1907)MSpA peat bogs, mixed and deciduous forests, reservoirs with leaf debris on the bottom
27.Aedes (Aedes) rossicus Dolbeskin, Gorickaja and Mitrofanowa, 1930PSpA + small temporary water bodies, inundation areas of river valleys, swampy woodlands with acid waters
28.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) rusticus (Rossi, 1790)MSpA snow-melt temporary forest reservoirs, partly shaded woodlands
29.Aedes (Ochlerotatus) sticticus (Meigen, 1838)MSmA + river valleys, shaded flood reservoirs with neutral to alkaline waters
30.Aedes (Aedimorphus) vexans (Meigen, 1830)PSpA, Z + inundation areas of river valleys and lakes, temporary water bodies with neutral to alkaline water, flooded meadows, poplar cultures, willow and reed areas
31.Anopheles (Anopheles) atroparvus van Thiel, 1927MSmA, Z + sun exposed stagnant, semi-permanent, or permanent breeding sites, in saline and freshwater reservoirs, brackish water, canals, ditches, marshes, river margins, pools in riverbeds with a considerable amount of filamentous green algae and other floating and submerged vegetation
32.Anopheles (Anopheles) claviger (Meigen, 1804)PSpA + ponds, tree hollows, ditches with clear water and reeds
33.Anopheles (Anopheles) daciae Linton, Nicolescu & Harbach, 2004PSpA stagnant clear reservoirs on the banks of rivers and lakes with abundant growth of submerged vegetation, swamps, flood plains, ponds, and ditches, larger water bodies on floodplains
34.Anopheles (Anopheles) hyrcanus (Pallas, 1771)PSpA + sun-exposed stagnant water bodies on floodplain, water bodies rich in aquatic vegetation and vertical structures like reeds, swamps, rice fields, edges of slowly moving waters such as grassy streams, ditches, and canals, larvae tolerate a slight degree of salinity, can be found on coastal and inland marshes
35.Anopheles (Anopheles) maculipennis s.s. Meigen, 1818PSpA, Z + meadows, the sheltered edges of floating streams with clear water, irrigation fields, calm rivers, small water bodies without vegetation and artificial collections of water, waters with a high content of organic matter
36.Anopheles (Anopheles) messeae Falleroni, 1926PSpZ + stagnant clear reservoirs on the banks of rivers and lakes with abundant growth of submerged vegetation, swamps, flood plains, ponds, and ditches, larger water bodies on floodplains
37.Anopheles (Anopheles) petragnani del Vecchio, 1939PSmZ in fresh water rock pools in river beds or in ditches and drainage canals with alkaline, low conductivity and low values of hardness, with little vegetation also in artificial breeding sites like wells and cisterns
38.Anopheles (Anopheles) plumbeus Stephens, 1828PSpA, Z + forests, edges of the forests, exclusively in tree hollows in dark brown waters with dissolved tannins and pigments also with high concentration of salts
39.Coquillettidia (Coquillettidia) richiardii (Ficalbi, 1889)MSmA + permanent water reservoirs with rich vegetation
40.Culiseta (Culiseta) alaskaensis (Ludlow, 1906)PSpA, Z permanent meltwater reservoirs
41.Culiseta (Culiseta) annulata (Schrank, 1776)PSpA, Z + ponds, ponds, ditches, brackish water, rainwater in vessels and waste
42.Culiseta (Culicella) fumipennis (Stephens, 1825)MSpZ ponds, wetlands, reservoirs with abundant vegetation, rarely brackish waters
43.Culiseta (Culiseta) glaphyroptera (Schiner,1864)PSpZ cool reservoirs with clear water, hollows of trees, depressions along streams
44.Culiseta (Culicella) morsitans (Theobald, 1901)MSpZ + ponds, small temporary reservoirs, vessels, wet forests, brackish and saline waters
45.Culiseta (Culicella) ochroptera (Peus, 1935)MSpZ + peat bogs, shallow swamps, forest ponds and ditches, lakes
46.Culiseta (Culiseta) subochrea (Edwards, 1921)PSpA, Z clear water ditches and ponds, shady brackish waters
47.Culex (Maillotia) hortensis Ficalbi, 1889PSpZ clear water with vegetation, unused wells, and vessels, small water reservoirs
48.Culex (Barraudius) modestus Ficalbi, 1889PSmA + meadows, rice fields, brackish waters
49.Culex (Culex) pipiens s.l. Linnaeus, 1758PSmA + polluted water reservoirs, underground stormwater drainage system (biotype molestus); almost any type of stagnant water (biotype pipiens)
50.Culex (Neoculex) territans Walker, 1856PSpZ lakes and ponds, swamps, areas along streams, polluted waters
51.Culex (Culex) torrentium Martini, 1925PSpA + water tanks similar to Cx. pipiens biotype pipiens, but with clearer water
P—polycyclic; M—monocyclic; Sp—spring; Sm—summer; A—anthropophilic; Z—zoophilic.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.J. and D.K.; validation, D.K., W.P.P., F.S. and P.J.; investigation, P.J.; writing—original draft preparation, P.J. and D.K.; writing—review and editing, P.J., D.K., W.P.P. and F.S.; visualization, P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Thomas Weitzel from KABS e. V. for help in selecting the references included in this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Cuthbert, R.N.; Darriet, F.; Chabrerie, O.; Lenoir, J.; Courchamp, F.; Claeys, C.; Robert, V.; Jourdain, F.; Ulmer, R.; Diagne, C.; et al. Invasive hematophagous arthropods and associated diseases in a changing World. Parasit. Vectors 2023, 16, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Giunti, G.; Becker, N.; Benelli, G. Invasive mosquito vectors in Europe: From bioecology to surveillance and management. Acta Trop. 2023, 239, 106832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Becker, N.; Petric, D.; Zgomba, M.; Boase, C.; Madon, M.; Dahl, C.; Kaiser, A. Mosquitoes: Identification, Ecology and Control; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-11622-4. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kubica-Biernat, B. Distribution of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Poland. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 1999, 5, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wegner, E. Mosquitoes (Culicidae). In Fauna of Poland—Characteristics and Checklist of Species; Bogdanowicz, W., Chudzicka, E., Pilipiuk, I., Skibińska, E., Eds.; Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 2007; pp. 37–39. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rydzanicz, K.; Lonc, E.; Kiewra, D.; DeChant, P.; Krause, S.; Becker, N. Evaluation of three microbial formulations against Culex pipiens pipiens larvae in irrigation fields in Wroclaw, Poland. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2009, 25, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rydzanicz, K.; Kaliwoda, M.; Jawień, P. Assessment of Productivity of the Floodwater Mosquito Breeding Sites in Wroclaw area (Poland); Buczek, A., Błaszak, C., Eds.; Akapit: Lublin, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rydzanicz, K.; Kacki, Z.; Jawień, P. Environmental factors associated with the distribution of floodwater mosquito eggs in irrigated fields in Wrocław, Poland. J. Vector Ecol. 2011, 36, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Rydzanicz, K.; Sobczyński, M.; Baraniecka, I. Środowiskowe uwarunkowania wieczornej aktywności synantropijnych gatunków komarów [Diptera: Culicinae] na terenie Wrocławia. Wiad. Parazytol. 2005, 51, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Rydzanicz, K.; Golab, E.; Rozej-Bielicka, W.; Masny, A. Screening of mosquitoes for filarioid helminths in urban areas in south western Poland—Common patterns in European Setaria tundra xenomonitoring studies. Parasitol. Res. 2019, 118, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Trzebny, A.; Slodkowicz-Kowalska, A.; Becnel, J.J.; Sanscrainte, N.; Dabert, M. A new method of metabarcoding microsporidia and their hosts reveals high levels of microsporidian infections in mosquitoes (Culicidae). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2020, 20, 1486–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Trzebny, A.; Jedut, S.; Nahimova, O.; Dabert, M. Differences in the proliferation trend of “Microsporidium” sp. PL03 in Culex pipiens and C. torrentium larvae. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2023, 201, 107990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Trzebny, A.; Mizera, J.; Dabert, M. Microsporidians (Microsporidia) parasitic on mosquitoes (Culicidae) in central Europe are often multi-host species. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2023, 197, 107873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rydzanicz, K.; Lonc, E. Species composition and seasonal dynamics of mosquito larvae in the Wroclaw, Poland Area. J. Vector Ecol. 2004, 28, 255–266. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lonc, E.; Rydzanicz, K.; Gomulkiewicz, B. Monitoring środowiskowy i zwalczanie miejskich populacji komarów Culicinae [Diptera: Culicidae] we Wrocławiu. Wiad. Parazytol. 2004, 50, 571–578. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rydzanicz, K.; Sobczynski, M.; Guz-Regner, K. Comparison of activity and persistence of microbial insecticides based on Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus in organicly polluted mosquito-breeding sites. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 1317–1323. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rydzanicz, K.; DeChant, P.; Becker, N. Field efficacy of granular formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis—strain Am65-52 against floodwater mosquitoes in Poland and Germany. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2010, 26, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rydzanicz, K.; Hoffman, K.; Jawien, P.S.; Kiewra, D.; Becker, N. Implementation of geographic information system (GIS) in an environment friendly mosquito control programme in irrigation fields in Wrocław (Poland). Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2011, 29, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rydzanicz, K.; Czułowska, A.; Manz, C.; Jawień, P. First record of Anopheles daciae (Linton, Nicolescu & Harbach, 2004) in Poland. J. Vector Ecol. 2017, 42, 196–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lühken, R.; Becker, N.; Dyczko, D.; Sauer, F.G.; Kliemke, K.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Rydzanicz, K. First record of Anopheles (Anopheles) hyrcanus (Pallas 1771) (Diptera: Culicidae) in Poland. Parasit Vectors 2023, 16, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kubica-Biernat, B.; Kowalska-Ulczyńska, B.; Stańczak, J. Mosquito fauna (Diptera: Culicidae) of the Gdańsk Agglomeration. (Komary (Diptera: Culicidae) Trójmiasta). In Arthropods: Environment, Pathogens and Hosts; Buczek, A., Błaszak, C., Eds.; Koliber: Lublin, Poland, 2007; pp. 61–66. ISBN 978-83-60497-26-5. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kubica-Biernat, B.; Kowalska-Ulczyńska, B.; Gliniewicz, A. Effectiveness of VectoBac 12AS and VectoBac TP against mosquito larvae in the field trials in northern Poland. In Stawonogi: Ekologiczne i Patologiczne Aspekty Układu Pasożyt—Żywiciel; Buczek, A., Błaszak, C., Eds.; Akapit: Lublin, Poland, 2010; pp. 263–271. ISBN 978-83-896160-7-4. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wegner, E. A study of mosquito fauna (Diptera: Culicidae) and the phenology of the species recorded in Wilanów (Warsaw, Poland). Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2009, 27, 23–32. [Google Scholar]
  24. Trzebny, A.; Slodkowicz-Kowalska, A.; Björkroth, J.; Dabert, M. Microsporidian infection in mosquitoes (Culicidae) is associated with gut microbiome composition and predicted gut microbiome functional content. Microb. Ecol. 2023, 85, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gliniewicz, A.; Rydzanicz, K.; Mikulak, E. Methods of mosquito plague control in Świnoujście area based on the analysis of species distribution. Przegl. Epidemiol. 2015, 69, 93–98. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wegner, E. Mosquito fauna (Diptera: Culicidae) of five different towns in Poland with special reference to the occurence of human disease vectors. Fragm. Faun. 2008, 51, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wegner, E. Preliminary study of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of the Narew National Park in Poland. Fragm. Faun. 2002, 45, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wegner, E. Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of the Iława Lakeland Landscape Park (Poland) (Komary (Diptera: Culicidae) Parku Krajobrazowego Pojezierza Iławskiego). Dipteron 2009, 25, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and European Food Safety Authority. Aedes japonicus—Current Known Distribution. October 2023. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/aedes-japonicus-current-known-distribution-october-2023 (accessed on 20 February 2024).
  30. Schaffner, F.; Kwaśnik, M.; Myczko, Ł.; Rożek, W.; Eritja, R.; Lippert, S.; Wint, G.R.W.; Leszczyńska, J. A Survey Targeting Aedes invasive mosquito species in central Europe, Summer 2023, reveals the extensive occurrence of Aedes japonicus in Poland. J. Eur. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 2024, in press.
  31. Kubica-Biernat, B.; Kowalska-Ulczyńska, B. Identification and distribution of sibling species of Anopheles Maculipennis Complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in north-eastern Poland. Fragm. Faun. 2011, 54, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brusentsov, I.I.; Gordeev, M.I.; Yurchenko, A.A.; Karagodin, D.A.; Moskaev, A.V.; Hodge, J.M.; Burlak, V.A.; Artemov, G.N.; Sibataev, A.K.; Becker, N.; et al. Patterns of genetic differentiation imply distinct phylogeographic history of the mosquito species Anopheles messeae and Anopheles daciae in Eurasia. Mol. Ecol. 2023, 32, 5609–5625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kronefeld, M.; Dittmann, M.; Zielke, D.; Werner, D.; Kampen, H. Molecular confirmation of the occurrence in Germany of Anopheles daciae (Diptera, Culicidae). Parasit. Vectors 2012, 5, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kampen, H.; Schäfer, M.; Zielke, D.E.; Walther, D. The Anopheles Maculipennis Complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Germany: An update following recent monitoring activities. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 3281–3294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kavran, M.; Zgomba, M.; Weitzel, T.; Petric, D.; Manz, C.; Becker, N. Distribution of Anopheles daciae and other Anopheles Maculipennis Complex species in Serbia. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 3277–3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Czajka, C.; Weitzel, T.; Kaiser, A.; Pfitzner, W.P.; Becker, N. Species composition, geographical distribution and seasonal abundance of the Anopheles Maculipennis Complex along the Upper Rhine, Germany. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Halgoš, J.; Benková, I. First record of Anopheles hyrcanus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Slovakia. Biol.—Sect. Zool. 2004, 59, 68. [Google Scholar]
  38. Blažejová, H.; Šebesta, O.; Rettich, F.; Mendel, J.; Čabanová, V.; Miterpáková, M.; Betášová, L.; Peško, J.; Hubálek, Z.; Kampen, H.; et al. Cryptic species Anopheles daciae (Diptera: Culicidae) found in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Culverwell, C.L.; Vapalahti, O.P.; Harbach, R.E. Anopheles daciae, a new country record for Finland. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2020, 34, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Gadzhieva, S.S. Emergence and daytime resting sites in the malarial mosquito Anopheles hyrcanus (Culicidae) from the Daghestan Lowland. Entomol. Rev. 2007, 87, 1325–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Naumenko, A.; Karagodin, D.; Yurchenko, A.; Moskaev, A.; Martin, O.; Baricheva, E.; Sharakhov, I.; Gordeev, M.; Sharakhova, M. Chromosome and genome divergence between the cryptic Eurasian malaria vector-species Anopheles messeae and Anopheles daciae. Genes 2020, 11, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Votýpka, J.; Šeblová, V.; Rádrová, J. Spread of the West Nile Virus vector Culex modestus and the potential malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus in Central Europe. J. Vector Ecol. 2008, 33, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bertola, M.; Mazzucato, M.; Pombi, M.; Montarsi, F. Updated occurrence and bionomics of potential malaria vectors in Europe: A systematic review (2000–2021). Parasit. Vectors 2022, 15, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ponçon, N.; Balenghien, T.; Toty, C.; Ferré, J.B.; Thomas, C.; Dervieux, A.; L’Ambert, G.; Schaffner, F.; Bardin, O.; Fontenille, D. Effects of local anthropogenic changes on potential malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus and West Nile Virus vector Culex modestus, Camargue, France. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 12, 1810–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lilja, T.; Eklöf, D.; Jaenson, T.; Lindström, A.; Terenius, O. Single nucleotide polymorphism analysis of the ITS2 region of two sympatric malaria mosquito species in Sweden: Anopheles daciae and Anopheles messeae. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2020, 34, 364–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Poncon, N.; Toty, C.; Kengne, P.; Alten, B.; Fontenille, D. Molecular evidence for similarity between Anopheles hyrcanus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Anopheles pseudopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), sympatric potential vectors of malaria in France. J. Med. Entomol. 2008, 45, 576–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Šebesta, O.; Rettich, F.; MINÁŘ, J.; Halouzka, J.; HUBÁLEK, Z.; JUŘICOVÁ, Z.; Rudolf, I.; ŠIKUTOVÁ, S.; GELBIČ, I.; Reiter, P. Presence of the mosquito Anopheles hyrcanus in south Moravia, Czech Republic. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2009, 23, 284–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Mihailović, D.T.; Petrić, D.; Petrović, T.; Hrnjaković-Cvjetković, I.; Djurdjevic, V.; Nikolić-Đorić, E.; Arsenić, I.; Petrić, M.; Mimić, G.; Ignjatović-Ćupina, A. Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile Disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Toma, L.; Catalani, M.; Catalano, A.; Goffredo, M.; Romi, R.; Di Luca, M. Rinvenimento di Anopheles (Anopheles) hyrcanus (Pallas, 1771) (Diptera, Culicidae) durante la sorveglianaza entomologica per il virus West Nile virus in Umbria. Vet. Ital. 2017, 53, 263–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kubica-Biernat, B. Biologia i występowanie Anopheles claviger s.l. (Diptera: Culicidae) w Polsce. (The biology and occurrence of Anopheles claviger s.l. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Poland). In Stawonogi: Środowisko, Patogeny i Żywiciele; Buczek, A., Błaszak, C., Eds.; Koliber: Lublin, Poland, 2007; pp. 67–70. ISBN 978-83-60497-26-5. [Google Scholar]
  51. Becker, N.; Pfitzner, W.P.; Czajka, C.; Kaiser, A.; Weitzel, T. Anopheles (Anopheles) petragnani Del Vecchio 1939—A new mosquito species for Germany. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 2671–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kampen, H.; Sternberg, A.; Proft, J.; Bastian, S.; Schaffner, F.; Maier, W.A.; Seitz, H.M. Polymerase chain reaction-based differentiation of the mosquito sibling species Anopheles claviger s.s. and Anopheles petragnani (Diptera: Culicidae). Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2003, 69, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Schaffner, F.; Weigand, A.; Ries, C. Atlas and Catalogue of the Mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) of Luxembourg; Ferrantia; Musée national d’histoire naturelle Luxembourg: Luxembourg, 2003; Volume 83. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vojtíšek, J.; Janssen, N.; Šikutová, S.; Šebesta, O.; Kampen, H.; Rudolf, I. Emergence of the invasive Asian bush mosquito Aedes (Hulecoeteomyia) japonicus (Theobald, 1901) in the Czech Republic. Parasit Vectors 2022, 15, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Čabanová, V.; Boršová, K.; Svitok, M.; Oboňa, J.; Svitková, I.; Barbušinová, E.; Derka, T.; Sláviková, M.; Klempa, B. An unwanted companion reaches the country: The first record of the alien mosquito Aedes japonicus japonicus (Theobald, 1901) in Slovakia. Parasit Vectors 2021, 14, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schaffner, F.; Kaufmann, C.; Hegglin, D.; Mathis, A. The invasive mosquito Aedes japonicus in Central Europe. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2009, 23, 448–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Becker, N.; Huber, K.; Pluskota, B.; Kaiser, A. Ochlerotatus japonicus japonicus–a newly established Neozoan in Germany and a revised list of the German mosquito fauna. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2011, 29, 102. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kampen, H.; Kronefeld, M.; Zielke, D.; Werner, D. Further Specimens of the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus (Diptera, Culicidae) trapped in Southwest Germany. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 905–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Koban, M.B.; Kampen, H.; Scheuch, D.E.; Frueh, L.; Kuhlisch, C.; Janssen, N.; Steidle, J.L.M.; Schaub, G.A.; Werner, D. The Asian bush mosquito Aedes japonicus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Europe, 17 years after its first detection, with a focus on monitoring methods. Parasit. Vectors 2019, 12, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Gomostacva, R.M. The status of taxa of subgenus Aedes (Diptera, Culicidae, Aedes) esoensis Yamada, rossicus Dolbeskin, Gorickaja & Mitrofanova, cinereas Meigen, geminus Peus. 1. Overview. J. Eur. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2003, 16, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lindström, A.; Eklöf, D.; Lilja, T. Different hatching rates of floodwater mosquitoes Aedes sticticus, Aedes rossicus and Aedes cinereus from different flooded environments. Insects 2021, 12, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Schaffner, F.; Pfirsch, F. Un nouveau moustique pour la faune Française: Aedes (Ae.) esoensis rossicus Dolbeskin, Gorickaja & Mitrofanova, 1930 (Diptera, Culicidae). Bull. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 1995, 100, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sauer, F.G.; Jaworski, L.; Erdbeer, L.; Heitmann, A.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Kiel, E.; Lühken, R. Geometric morphometric wing analysis represents a robust tool to identify female mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Germany. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hubálek, Z.; Rudolf, I.; Bakonyi, T.; Kazdová, K.; Halouzka, J.; Šebesta, O.; Šikutová, S.; Juřicová, Z.; Nowotny, N. Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) surveillance for arboviruses in an area endemic for West Nile (Lineage Rabensburg) and Ťahyňa Viruses in central Europe. J. Med. Entomol. 2010, 47, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Panjukova, E.; Medvedev, S. Species composition and ecological peculiarities of the mosquito genera Aedes and Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Novgorod Region. Parazitologiia 2007, 41, 364–371. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rydzanicz, K.; Jawień, P.; Lonc, E.; Modelska, M. Assessment of productivity of Culex spp. larvae (Diptera: Culicidae) in urban storm water catch basin system in Wrocław (SW Poland). Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 1711–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Wilkerson, R. Mosquitoes of the World; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2021; ISBN 9781421438146. [Google Scholar]
  68. Martinet, J.P.; Ferté, H.; Failloux, A.B.; Schaffner, F.; Depaquit, J. Mosquitoes of north-western Europe as potential vectors of arboviruses: A review. Viruses 2019, 11, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Birnberg, L.; Talavera, S.; Aranda, C.; Núñez, A.I.; Napp, S.; Busquets, N. Field-captured Aedes vexans (Meigen, 1830) is a competent vector for Rift Valley Fever phlebovirus in Europe. Parasit Vectors 2019, 12, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fros, J.J.; Miesen, P.; Vogels, C.B.; Gaibani, P.; Sambri, V.; Martina, B.E.; Koenraadt, C.J.; van Rij, R.P.; Vlak, J.M.; Takken, W.; et al. Comparative Usutu and West Nile virus transmission potential by local Culex pipiens mosquitoes in north-western Europe. One Health 2015, 1, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Holicki, C.M.; Scheuch, D.E.; Ziegler, U.; Lettow, J.; Kampen, H.; Werner, D.; Groschup, M.H. German Culex pipiens biotype molestus and Culex torrentium are vector-competent for Usutu Virus. Parasit. Vectors 2020, 13, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Jansen, S.; Heitmann, A.; Lühken, R.; Leggewie, M.; Helms, M.; Badusche, M.; Rossini, G.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Tannich, E. Culex torrentium: A potent vector for the transmission of West Nile virus in central Europe. Viruses 2019, 11, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hernández-Triana, L.M.; De Marco, M.F.; Mansfield, K.L.; Thorne, L.; Lumley, S.; Marston, D.; Fooks, A.A.; Johnson, N. Assessment of vector competence of UK mosquitoes for Usutu Virus of African origin. Parasit. Vectors 2018, 11, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Šebesta, O.; Rudolf, I.; Betasova, L.; Pesko, J.; Hubálek, Z. An invasive mosquito species Aedes albopictus found in the Czech Republic, 2012. Eurosurveillance 2012, 17, 20301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Bocková, E.; Kočišová, A.; Letková, V. First record of Aedes albopictus in Slovakia. Acta Parasitol. 2013, 58, 603–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Walther, D.; Scheuch, D.E.; Kampen, H. The invasive Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Germany: Local reproduction and overwintering. Acta Trop. 2017, 166, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Pfitzner, W.P.; Lehner, A.; Hoffmann, D.; Czajka, C.; Becker, N. First record and morphological characterization of an established population of Aedes (Hulecoeteomyia) koreicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Germany. Parasit. Vectors 2018, 11, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Cunze, S.; Kochmann, J.; Klimpel, S. Global occurrence data improve potential distribution models for Aedes japonicus japonicus in non-native regions. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 1814–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wegner, E. Additions to the mosquito fauna (Diptera: Culicidae) of Wrocław, Poland. Eur. Mosq. Bul. 2007, 24, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kubica-Biernat, B.; Kowalska-Ulczyńska, B. Mosquito fauna (Diptera: Culicidae) of the Vistula Spit. In Arthropods. Epidemiological Importance; Koliber: Lublin, Poland, 2006; pp. 145–151. ISBN 83-60497-15-X. [Google Scholar]
  81. Kowalska-Ulczyńska, B.; Giłka, W. Komary (Diptera: Culicidae) miejscowości Wyskok na Mazurach [Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of the vicinity of Wyskok in the Masuria]. Wiadomości Entomol. 2003, 22, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
  82. Rydzanicz, K.; Czułowska, A.; Dyczko, D.; Kiewra, D. Assessment of mosquito larvae (Diptera: Culicidae) productivity in urban cemeteries in Wroclaw (SW Poland). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 3249–3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Weitzel, T.; Jawień, P.; Rydzanicz, K.; Lonc, E.; Becker, N. Culex pipiens s.l. and Culex torrentium (Culicidae) in Wrocław area (Poland): Occurrence and breeding site preferences of mosquito vectors. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Insects 15 00353 g001
Figure 1. NUTS 3 territorial units in Poland, where work on the species composition of mosquitoes was carried out between the years 2000–2023 (dark grey), light grey areas—units where Ae. japonicus was found in 2023 [29,30].
Figure 1. NUTS 3 territorial units in Poland, where work on the species composition of mosquitoes was carried out between the years 2000–2023 (dark grey), light grey areas—units where Ae. japonicus was found in 2023 [29,30].
Insects 15 00353 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jawień, P.; Pfitzner, W.P.; Schaffner, F.; Kiewra, D. Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Poland: An Update of Species Diversity and Current Challenges. Insects 2024, 15, 353. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15050353

AMA Style

Jawień P, Pfitzner WP, Schaffner F, Kiewra D. Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Poland: An Update of Species Diversity and Current Challenges. Insects. 2024; 15(5):353. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15050353

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jawień, Piotr, Wolf Peter Pfitzner, Francis Schaffner, and Dorota Kiewra. 2024. "Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Poland: An Update of Species Diversity and Current Challenges" Insects 15, no. 5: 353. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15050353

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop