New genetic control methods for mosquitoes may reduce vector species without direct effects on other species or the physical environment common with insecticides or drainage. Effects on predators and competitors could, however, be a concern as Anopheles gambiae s.l. is preyed upon in all life stages. We overview the literature and assess the strength of the ecological interactions identified. Most predators identified consume many other insect species and there is no evidence that any species preys exclusively on any anopheline mosquito. There is one predatory species with a specialisation on blood-fed mosquitoes including An. gambiae s.l.. Evarcha culicivora is a jumping spider, known as the vampire spider, found around Lake Victoria. There is no evidence that these salticids require Anopheles mosquitoes and will readily consume blood-fed Culex. Interspecific competition studies focus on other mosquitoes of larval habitats. Many of these take place in artificial cosms and give contrasting results to semi-field studies. This may limit their extrapolation regarding the potential impact of reduced An. gambiae numbers. Previous mosquito control interventions are informative and identify competitive release and niche opportunism; so while the identity and relative abundance of the species present may change, the biomass available to predators may not.

The risks of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus nuisance and vector-borne diseases are rising and the adverse effects of broadspectrum insecticide application have promoted species-specific techniques, such as sterile insect technique (SIT) and other genetic strategies, as contenders in their control operations. When specific vector suppression is proposed, potential effects on predators and wider ecosystem are some of the first stakeholder questions. These are not the only Aedes vectors of human diseases, but are those for which SIT and genetic strategies are of most interest. They vary ecologically and in habitat origin, but both have behaviorally human-adapted forms with expanding ranges. The aquatic life stages are where predation is strongest due to greater resource predictability and limited escape opportunity. These vectors' anthropic forms usually use ephemeral water bodies and man-made containers as larval habitats; predators that occur in these are mobile, opportunistic and generalist. No literature indicates that any predator depends on larvae of either species. As adults, foraging theory predicts these mosquitoes are of low profitability to predators. Energy expended hunting and consuming will mostly outweigh their energetic benefit. Moreover, as adult biomass is mobile and largely disaggregated, any predator is likely to be a generalist and opportunist. This work, which summarizes much of the literature currently available on the predators of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, indicates it is highly unlikely that any predator species depends on them. Species-specific vector control to reduce nuisance and disease is thus likely to be of negligible or limited impact on nontarget predators.

Outdoor biting constitutes a major limitation of current vector control based primarily on long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying, both of which are indoor interventions. Consequently, malaria elimination will not be achieved unless additional tools are found to deal with the residual malaria transmission and the associated vector dynamics. In this study we tested a new vector control approach for rapidly crashing mosquito populations and disrupting malaria transmission in Africa. This method targets the previously neglected swarming and outdoor nocturnal behaviors of both male and female Anopheles mosquitoes. It involved accurate identification and targeted spraying of mosquito swarms to suppress adult malaria vector populations and their vectorial capacities. The impact of targeted spraying was compared to broadcast spraying and evaluated simultaneously. The effects of the two interventions were very similar, no significant differences between targeted spraying and broadcast spraying were found for effects on density, insemination or parity rate. However, targeted spraying was found to be significantly more effective than broadcast spraying at reducing the number of bites per person. As expected, each intervention had a highly significant impact upon all parameters measured, but the targeted swarm spraying required less insecticide.