Diversity of Entomofauna of the Scientific City of Brazzaville (Republic of Congo)

Anthelme Tsoumou^1*, Durelle Brith Caelle Olabi-Obath^1,2, Marcellin Mikia¹, Isabelle Mady-Goma Dirat^1,2

¹Laboratory of Research of Animal Biology and Ecology, ENS, University Marien NGOUABI, Brazzaville, Congo.
²Faculty of Applied Sciences, University DENIS SASSOU-N’GUESSO, Kintélé, Congo.

DOI: 10.4236/oje.2025.152008                

Abstract

The entomofauna in the Republic of Congo is very little known. Studies carried out in natural forests are few. It is in this context that this inventory of entomofauna was carried out from April to July 2022 in the Scientific City Forest. The general objective is to contribute to the knowledge of the trapping, mowing and sight hunting; the three types of traps used are: Barber pots, colored plates and aerial traps. This study made it possible to invent 1523 specimens belonging to 106 species, 99 genera, 59 families and 12 orders. The order Diptera is the most abundant and richest in species (47% and 26%). This order is followed by Hymenoptera (23% and 23%). Formicidae (14%) and Calliphoridae (13%) are the most abundant families. The Formicidae family presents the greatest species richness (7%), Calliphora sp and Polyrhachis cyaniventris present the highest specific relative abundance of the entire collection. These preliminary results of the entomofauna of Scientific City constitute a database. However, this study must be continued and extended to other areas of Brazzaville, using other capture techniques and taking into account the seasons.

Keywords

Scientific City, Forest, Entomofauna, Specific Richness, Brazzaville

1. Introduction

Insects constitute one of the major components of biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. They are particularly important in the Amazon and the Congo Basin [1]. They represent three-quarters of the animal species described on the planet with around six million species [2], a large number of insects still remain unknown in the 21st century [3]. Their interactions with plants represent particularly important scientific and societal issues since they affect the distribution and abundance of plant and animal species, consequently, the functioning and biological diversity of ecosystems as well as human well-being [4]. They make it possible, in fact, to assess the quality of ecosystems, to predict future changes and to diagnose ecological problems [5].

In the agronomic field, they are important because, living in association with plants, they ensure their protection through predation. Some are essentially true pollinators and spreaders of plants; others cause damage to crops and cause the decomposition of organic matter. In the health field, many species are used as antibiotics for dermatological infections; still others cause allergies [6]. They parasitize or transmit pathogenic organisms to humans, livestock and plants [7]. In genetics, insects have made it possible to demonstrate the process of cloning a gene to be expressed in viral DNA [8]. In pharmacology, many of them are increasingly studied in order to isolate natural substances of medical interest. The venoms of certain species are commonly used in indigenous pharmacopoeias [9]. In the traditional domain, insects and their productions also serve as technical materials. Beeswax is widely used. The dry nests of termites and wasps can be used to light fires, or be used in traditional remedies. In the food sector, insects are part of the eating habits of many populations around the world and contribute significantly to reducing the problems of deficiencies in proteins, lipids, vitamins and/or mineral salts [10] [11]. Insects of the Dactylopiidae family, notably scale insects (Coccus cacti), are used in the production of a natural dye called carmine, used in food coloring as well as in medicines and cosmetic products [12] [13].

In the Republic of Congo, entomological diversity is little known, because very few studies have been devoted to insects. Some works carried out, mostly old, are those of [14]-[20]. In addition, all this work is only based on the identification of the entomofauna of a few forests and savannahs in the Congo Basin. This study is a contribution to the knowledge of the diversity of the entomofauna of the natural forest of the Scientific City.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Presentation of the Study Area

The city of Brazzaville is located between 4˚10' and 4˚15' South latitude and 15˚15' East longitude (Figure 1). It extends for a third on a formerly marshy plain and for two-thirds on a plateau deeply cut by ravines and dominating the Congo River at an altitude of 313 m [21]. It is limited to the north by District 9 Djiri, to the south by District 8 Madibou, to the east by the Congo River and to the west by District 7 Mfilou. It extends for a third on a formerly marshy plain and for two-thirds on a plateau deeply cut by ravines and overlooking the Congo River at an altitude of 20 m via a cornice [22].

Figure 1. Location of the Scientific City forest (ex ORSTOM) (Google Earth).

2.2. Sampling and Conservation Methods

Entomological sampling often requires the implementation of several techniques. However, three (3) methods (trapping, sight hunting and mowing) with three (3) techniques (Barber pots, colored plates and hanging traps) were used to inventory the entomofauna from April to July 2022. These techniques were chosen because they are adapted to a forest environment. Samples collected in the field were fixed in acetone and preserved in alcohol at 70˚C.

2.3. Identification of Specimens

The specimens were identified and counted. The identification was based on the observation of morphological criteria, under the binocular magnifying glass using dichotomous keys and basic works. The various documents which allowed the identification of specimens are those of [23]-[28].

2.4. Data Analysis and Processing

Qualitative and quantitative data were entered into an Excel workbook, then subjected to analysis by Excel and R version 4.1.2 software. The quantitative data collected relating to the number of orders, families and species of insects made it possible to calculate the ecological indices of the identified insect population and to carry out the statistical tests. The data obtained are grouped, in a double-entry table, into means and standard deviations and their fluctuations are presented and highlighted by the histograms.

2.5. Ecological Indices

The results obtained from the sampling of entomofauna of the Scientific City are analyzed by centesimal frequency or relative abundance, Shannon-Weaver diversity indices and equitability.

2.5.1. Relative Abundance (RA%)

Relative abundance is the percentage of individuals of the species taken into consideration (ni) compared to the total individuals (N) of all species combined [29]. It is calculated by the following formula: AR% = ni/N × 100, with ni: Number of individuals of the species encountered; N: Total number of individuals of all species.

2.5.2. Shannon Diversity Index (H’)

To assess the species richness of insects, the Shannon diversity index which uses information theory is used. According to [30], it is necessary to combine the relative abundance of species and total richness in order to obtain a mathematical expression of the general Shannon-Weaver diversity index. The general formula for the Shannon diversity index (H) is:

H’ = −Ʃqilog2qi, where qi = ni/N. With qi: Relative frequency of the species (i) taken into consideration; ni: Total number of individuals of the species (i); N: Total number of all individuals of all species.

2.5.3. Piélou Eveness Index or Equitability (E)

The calculation of the Shannon diversity index must always be accompanied by that of fairness (E). According to [31], this eveness or equidistribution index corresponds to the ratio of the observed diversity (H’) to the maximum diversity (H’ max): E = H’/H’ max.

With: H’ = Shannon-Weaver diversity index; H’ max = maximum diversity.

H’ max = log 2 S, with S = total richness expressed in number of species. The equitability varies between 0 and 1. It tends towards 0 when the majority of the workforce is concentrated on one or two species. It is equal to 1, when all species are represented by the same number [32].

2.6. Statistical Tests

During this work, four (4) tests were used, including the Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon and 1-factor Student tests. They work by calculating the p-value (probability). If this p value is less than or equal to the significance threshold, we conclude that the difference is significant. When it is above the significance threshold, there is no significant difference.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Specific Composition

The inventory of the entomofauna of the Cité Scientifique made it possible to identify 1523 specimens belonging to 106 species, 99 genera, 59 families and 12 orders (Table 1, Figure 2).

Table 1. List of collected species.

Orders	Families		Genus	Species	Individuals (N)
Odonata	Libellulidae		Libellula	Libellula sp	6
			Palpopleura	Palpopleura lucia	2
	Aeshnidae		Aeshna	Aeshna affinis	3
Orthoptera	Gryllidae		Nemobius	Nemobius sylvestis	3
			Brachytrupes	Brachytrupes sp	5
			Gryllus	Gryllus campestris	5
			Acheta	Acheta domesticus	3
	Acrididae		Schistocerca	Schistocerca sp	6
			Schistocerca gregaria	4
	Tridactylidae		Tridactylus	Tridactylus sp	7
	Pneumoridae		Pneumora	Pneumora sp	3
	Tetricidae		Tetrix	Tetrix sp	13
Neuroptera	Chrysopidae		Chrysopa	Chrysopa sp	1
Dermaptera	Anisolabididae		Euborellia	Euborellia annulipes	65
Hemiptera	Miridae		Lygocoris	Lygocoris sp	1
	Aphrophoridae		Aphrophora	Aphrophora sp,	6
	Lygaeidae		Dieuches	Dieuches armatiques	3
	Cercopidae		Cercopis	Cercopis sp	7
	Cicadellidae		Oncopsis	Oncopsis sp	8
			Ledra	Ledra sp	3
	Pyrrhocoridae		Pyrrhocoris	Pyrrhocoris sp	10
	Alydidae		Alydus	Alydus sp	3
	Membracidae		Centrotus	Centrotus sp	10
Diptera	Neriidae		Telostylinus	Telostylinus sp	84
	Lauxaniidae		Homneura	Homneura sp	9
	Cecidomyiidae		Cecidomyia	Cecidomyia sp	3
	Sphaeroceridae		Sphaerocera	Sphaerocera sp	3
	Tachinidae		Tachina	Cylindromyia sp	2
			Tachina sp	15
	Stratiomyidae		Chloromya	Chloromya formosa	2
			Hermetia	Hermetia sp.	24
	Calliphoridae		Lucilia	Lucilia sp	14
			Lucilia sericata	2
			Calliphora	Calliphora sp	176
	Syrphidae		Cleilosia	Cleilosia sp	2
			Brachyopa	Brachyopa pilosa	1
	Diopsidae		Cyrtodiopsis	Cyrtodiopsis sp	9
	Muscidae		Phaonia	Phaonia rufiventris	13
			Musca	Musca sp	27
	Dolichopodidae		Poecilodothrus	Poecilodothrus sp	59
			Poecilodothrus nobilitatus	48
	Sarcophagidae		Sarcophaga	Sarcophaga spp	66
			Sarcophaga melanura	5
	Tephritidae		Tephritis	Tephritis sp	1
	Pipimculidae		Dorytomorpha	Dorytomorpha sp	3
	Mycetophilidae	Macrocera		Macrocera sp	11
	Drosophilidae	Drosophilia		Drosophilia spp	94
				Drosophilia melanogaster	41
Hymenoptera	Vespidae	Rhynchium		Rhynchium spp.	13
		Belonogaster		Belonogaster sp.	15
		Synagris		Synagris sp.	19
	Collitidae	Collides		Collides sp.	3
		Hylaeoides		Hylaeoides sp.	1
	Apidae	Apis		Apis sp.	3
	Ichneumonidae	Netelia		Netelia sp.	33
	Scoliidae	Scolia		Scolia sp.	1
	Gasteruptiidae	Gasteruptions		Gasteruptions sp.	21
	Pompilidae	Priocnemis		Priocnemis sp.	1
		Agenioideus		Agenioideus apicalis	4
		Anoplius		Anoplius sp.	3
		Pepsis		Pepsis sp.	6
	Evaniidae	Evania		Evania appendigaster	2
	Bethylidae	Bethylus		Bethylus sp.	10
	Agaonidae	Blastophaga		Blastophaga psenes	2
	Formicidae	Polyrhachis		Polyrhachis cyaniventris	159
		Dinoponera		Dinoponera spp.	9
		Attas		Attas sp.	5
		Serviformica		Serviformica sp.	14
		Oecophylla		Oecophylla smaragdina	6
		Formica		Formica fusca	9
				Formica spp.	11
Blattoptera	Corydiidae	Arenivaga		Arenvaga sp.	11
	Blaberidae	Pycnoscelus		Pycnoscelus sp	29
		Lucihometia		Lucihometia sp.	2
		Bantua		Bantua sp.	2
	Blattellidae	Blatella		Blatella sp.	3
		Loboptera		Loboptera sp.	28
	Blattidae	Blatta		Blatta sp.	3
		Periplaneta		Periplaneta spp.	55
Coleoptera	Tenebrionidea	Gonocephalum		Gonocephalum sp.	6
		Tenebrio		Tenebrio obscurus	2
	Nilidulidae	Epuraea		Epuraea sp.	2
		Carpophilus		Carpophilus sp.	10
		Meligethes		Meligethes planiusculus	5
	Cetonidae	Chlorocala		Chlorocala africana	16
		Protaetia		Protaetia sp.	1
	Cerambycidae	Phytoecia		Phytoecia cylindrica	3
		Agapanthia		Agapanthia	1
	Buprestidae	Agrilus		Agrilus sp.	5
	Coccinellidae	Platynaspis		Platynaspis capicola	14
	Lycidae	Lycus		Lycus sp.	3
	Carabidae	Badister		Badister sp.	2
		Acupalpus		Acupalpus sp.	3
		Pterostichus		Pterostichus strenuus	2
Lepidoptera	Pieridae	Eurma		Eurema brigitta	4
		Mylothris		Mylothris agathina	3
		Pieris		Pieris sp.	2
	Nymphalidae	Precis		Precis pelarga	2
		Bicyclus		Bicyclus sp.	4
		Telchinia		Telchinia encedon	5
		Acraea		Acraea egina	5
	Papilionidae	Papilio		Papilio demodocus	2
	Lyceanidae	Cigaritis		Cigaritis sp.	2
	Erebidae	Erebus		Erebus sp.	40
Trichoptera	Hydropsychidae	Hydropsyche		Hydropsyche sp.	3
Isoptera	Termitidae	Macrotermes		Macrotermes sp.	2
					1523

Figure 2. Collected insects.

3.2. Relative Abundance of Orders

Figure 3. Proportional distribution of the relative abundance of orders.

Figure 3 generally represents the individual number of the orders listed of the Scientific City. We note that the Diptera are by far the most abundant, i.e. 47% of individuals, followed by the Hymenoptera (23%), Blattoptera (9%), Coleoptera and Lepidoptera (5%). The other orders (Dermaptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera, Odonata, Trichoptera, Isoptera and Neuroptera) have very low percentages less than 5%. The Kruskal-Wallis test at the 5% threshold with p = 0.04, shows that there is a highly significant difference between the first two orders (Diptera and Hymenoptera) and other orders. On the one hand, the difference is not very significant between other orders: Blattoptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Dermaptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera, Odonata, Blattoptera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Trichoptera, Isoptera and Neuroptera.

3.3. Specific Richness of Orders

The overall specific richness of the insect orders inventoried in the Scientific City is illustrated by Figure 4. This figure shows that the Diptera are statistically richer with a relative abundance of 26% of species, followed by the Hymenoptera (23%), Coleoptera (15%), Lepidoptera (10%). The rest of the orders (Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Blattoptera, Odonata, Neuroptera Dermaptera, Trichoptera and Isoptera) have species richness less than 10%. The Kruskall-Wallis test at the 5% threshold for a p-value = 0.04 reveals that the captured Diptera and Hymenoptera present no significant difference. On the other hand, the difference is highly significant compared to other orders: Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Blattoptera, Odonata, Neuroptera, Dermaptera, Trichoptera and Isoptera.

Figure 4. Proportional distribution of the specific richness of orders.

3.4. Relative Abundance of Families

The variation in the number of individuals according to the 36 families has a relative abundance varying between 10 (1%) and 213 individuals (14%). The Formicidae (213 individuals; 14%) and the Calliphoridae (196 individuals; 13%) are the most representative families; followed by the Drosophilidae (136 individuals; 9%), the Dolichopodidae (107 individuals; 7%), the Neriidae (84 individuals; 6%) and the Sarcophagidae (71 individuals; 5%). The other families have very low numerical abundances which decrease from 4% to 0.12% (Figure 5). The Kruskal Wallis test at 5% for p = 0.04 shows an insignificant difference between certain families.

Figure 5. Proportional distribution of the relative abundance of families.

3.5. Specific Richness of Families

The overall specific richness of the 26 main families inventoried in the Scientific City Forest is illustrated by Figure 6. It shows that the Formicidae family has the greatest specific richness (7%) than all the other families which each have a percentage of less than 5%. However, the Kruskall-Wallis test at the 5% threshold does not show any difference between these different families of insects inventoried after sampling because the p-value obtained (0.56) is strictly greater than the threshold (5%).

Figure 6. Proportional distribution of the specific richness of orders.

3.6. Specific Relative Abundance

The present study made it possible to identify 106 species of insects, the 35 main species are classified according to their relative abundance (Figure 7): Calliphora sp (25%), Polyrhachis cyaniventris (24%), Drosophilia sp (17%), Telostylinus sp (16%), Sarcophaga sp (14%), Euborellia annulipes (13%), Poecilodothrus sp (13%), Periplaneta sp (12%), Poecilodothrus nobilitatus (11%), Drosophilia melanogaster (10%), Erebus sp (10%), Netelia sp (8%), Pycnoscelus sp (8%), Loboptera sp (7%), Musca sp (7%), Hermetia sp (7%), Gasteruptions sp. (6%), Synagris sp. (5%), Chlorocala africana (5%), Tachina sp (5%), Belonogaster sp (5%). The rest of the species have a specific relative abundance less than 5%.

Figure 7. Proportional distribution of the specific relative abundance.

3.7. Specific Diversity

The values of the Shannon-Weaver indices (H’) and the equitability of the insect population are represented in Figure 8. The insect population of the Scientific City is very diverse, the Shannon index is equal to 3.73. The equitability which is less than 0.7 is equal to 0.51, which indicates the heterogeneous specific distribution of the population which is then unbalanced.

Figure 8. Distribution of the Shannon index and the equitability.

4. Discussion

During the present study, two orders dominated the collection: Diptera followed by Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Hemiptera and Blattoptera. The study of the pests of market gardening plants on the Congo River bank carried by [19], identified 4 main orders: Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera and Hymenoptera. The diversity and spatial distribution of the entomofauna of Ignié studied by [20] found the following main orders: Hymenoptera, Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Blattoptera and Odonata. The analysis of these results shows that Hymenoptera is a main order in the three studies but in slightly different proportions. The identified Diptera, in high proportion in the Scientific City, are also found in high proportions in the study of [19], but present in low proportion in Ignié. These results differ from those of [3] who obtained two major orders, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera, because another very effective light trap technique was applied. Indeed, the abundance of these two major orders could also be explained by the presence of an experimental field of corn and eggplants in full flowering and or fruiting in the study environment since they are true pollinators. [33] thinks that Orthoptera are very scarce during the fruiting or flowering period. These differences can be explained by varying sampling methods and techniques, as well as floristic composition. Concerning the specific richness of the orders, the student’s test (threshold 5%) with 1 factor (p = 0.001) showed that the Diptera are richer (25 species; 26%) than the Hymenoptera (23 species; 23%). This specific richness could be mainly due to the diversity of the calliphoridae and the Formicidae, whose dominant species are respectively Calliphora sp and Polyrhachis cyaniventris. These results corroborate those of [20]. This could be explained by the fact that these two forests belong to the same geographical area.

The Formicidae family is the most abundant, followed by the Callophoridae. We note that [20] also found that the Formicidae family dominates followed by the Acrididae in the part corresponding to the natural forest. These differ from the results of [20] obtained in the primary forest. This abundance of the two families would be justified by the use of more diversified sampling methods and techniques compared to those used in other works.

These results are similar to those of [1], who worked in a gallery forest in Gabon, and also observed the abundance of Formicidae. The 1-way Wilcoxon test (p = 0.04) applied to these results showed a significant difference between certain families. However, the Kruskal-Wallis test at the 5% threshold (p = 0.56) showed no clear difference between the specific richness of the families. Indeed, the differences observed from one entomological population to another could be explained by the fact that the aforementioned study was carried out in an area where the environmental factors are different from those of the Scientific City.

These results are similar to those of [34] who worked in the tropical zone (Guyana). This richness is marked mainly by the Coccinellidae family. [35] insinuates that Coleoptera are the richest taxon on earth and a major element of biodiversity. The 1-factor Wilcoxon test (5% threshold) showed that the Formicidae are also abundant, presenting seven (7) different species, representing the highest species richness in the field (7%).

The Shannon-Weaver diversity index is relatively high and equal to 3.73, which demonstrates significant specific richness in the Scientific City Forest [32]. Equitability is equal to 0.51, a value less than 0.7, indicating a heterogeneous specific distribution, proof of population imbalance. The study on the entomofauna of the Ignié forest carried out by [20], found a high specific diversity (H' = 4.95) linked to a homogeneity of the population (E = 0.85) in the station corresponding to the primary forest. This could result in internal ecological factors of natural forests which induce stability and a homogeneous distribution of individuals between species [36].

These results are different from those of the Scientific City due to the logging activities carried out by the neighboring populations, during the periods of civil wars that the Congo experienced during the period from 1990 to 2000. This massive deforestation caused profound environmental changes which have led to an imbalance in the population of entomofauna. Although there are no studies prior to the period of disturbances, nevertheless we can deduce that Calliphora sp and Polyrhachis cyaniventris were able to resist the changes while the majority of the more affected species are present but in small numbers.

5. Conclusion

The inventory of the entomofauna of the Scientific City (Ex ORSTOM) was carried out, following a methodology based on the combination of several quantitative collection techniques and made it possible to invent 1523 specimens divided into 102 species, grouped into 99 genera, 59 families and 12 orders. The most abundant order is that of Diptera, formed essentially by the family Calliphoridae. However, the Formicidae family (Hymenoptera) is the most representative and diverse. Calliphora sp. and Polyrhachis cyaniventris are the two species with the highest specific relative abundance. The entomofauna of the Scientific City is very diverse, the Shannon index is equal to 3.73. Equitability is equal to 0.51, indicating a heterogeneous specific distribution of the population which is therefore unbalanced.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor BANGA MBOKO Henri, Specialist of Animal Production, Superior School of Agronomy and Forestry, University Marien NGOUABI for the correction of the article English version.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Mavoungou, J.F., Acapovi-Yao, G.L., Zinga Koumba, C.R., Mbang Nguema, O.A. and M’batchi, B. (2016) Diversité de l’entomofaune de la zone pétrolifère de Ntchengué Port-Gentil au Gabon. Afrique Science, 12, 151-163.
[2]	Stam, W., Arzlanian, S. and Elfring, T. (2014) Social Capital of Entrepreneurs and Small Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Contextual and Methodological Moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 152-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.002
[3]	Ambakina, H., Looli, L., Bolondo, G., Yabengwa, R., Sengeli, L., Bohula, F., Mon-zenga, J.C. and Nshimba, H. (2022) Efficacité de quatre pièges au cours d’un inventaire entomologique dans les forêts de Bagbasende, province de la Tshopo en République Démocratique du Congo. African Journal of Tropical Entomology Research, 1, 140-144.
[4]	Widmer, I., Mühlethaler, R., Baur, B., Gonseth, Y., Guntern, J., Klaus, G., Knop, E., Lachat, T., Moretti, M., Pauli, D., Pellissier, L., Sattler, T. and Altermatt, F. (2021) Diversité des Insectes en suisse: Importance, tendances, actions possibles. Swiss Academies Factsheets, 16, 16 p.
[5]	Noss, R.F. (1999) Assessing and Monitoring Forest Biodiversity: A Suggested Framework and Indicators. Forest Ecology and Management, 115, 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(98)00394-6
[6]	Garrouste, R. (2012) Les Insectes à la loupe. Dunod, 175.
[7]	Hoffmann, J. (2011) Le Monde des Insectes, son importance pour l’Homme et l’apport de l’étude des Insectes aux sciences du vivant. extrait d’allocution, Academie des sciences, 3 p. https://www.cnrs.fr/fr
[8]	Filhol, O., Cochet, C. and Chambaz, E. (1990) La pathologie des insectes au service du génie génétique. Médecine/Sciences, 6, 297-300. https://doi.org/10.4267/10608/4134
[9]	Césard, N., Deturche, J. and Erikson, P. (2003) Les insectes dans les pratiques médicinales et rituelles d’Amazonie indigène. In: Motte-Florac, E. and Thomas, J.M.C., Eds., Les Insectes dans la tradition orale, Peeters Publishers, 395-406.
[10]	Malaisse, F. (2021) Les Insectes dans la tradition orale/Insects in Oral Literature and Traditions. Peeters-SELAF (Ethnosciences), 395-406.
[11]	Ramos-Elorduy, J. (2005) Insects: A Hopeful Food Source. In: Paoletti, M.G., Ed., Ecological Implications of Minilivestock: Potential of Insects, Rodents, Frogs and Snails for Sustainable Development, Science Publishers Inc., 263-291.
[12]	Cardon, D. (2003) Le monde des teintures naturelles. BELIN, 586.
[13]	Roque, G. (2021) La Cochenille, de la teinture à la peinture: Une histoire matérielle de la couleur. GALLIMARD, 336.
[14]	Quentin, R. (1966) Contribution à la faune du Congo (Brazzaville): Mission A. Villiers et A. Descarpentries: 36. Coléoptères Brenthidae. Bulletin de l’IFAN (SEN), 28, 1631-1670.
[15]	Kouka, O. (1987) Les insectes comestibles dans les sociétés d’Afrique centrale. Muntu, 6, 171-178.
[16]	Noireau, F., Toudic, A., Gouteux, J.P., Bissadidi, N., Frézil, J. and Duteurtre, J.P. (1987) Les glossines de l’agglomération brazzavilloise. III. Rôle vecteur dans les trypanosomoses animales et humaine. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux, 40, 67-69. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.8700
[17]	Vattier-Bernard, G. and Trouillet, J. (1983) Phlébotomes du mayombe congolais (Diptera, Psychodidae). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée, 58, 391-401. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/1983584391
[18]	Asseh, A. and Sito, J.A. (1997) Inventaire des Insectes comestibles dans le Département de Brazzaville. Mémoire de CAPES, Université Marien Ngouabi de Brazzaville (Congo), École Normale Supérieure, 35.
[19]	Tsiakaka Samba, G. (2012) Biodiversité des Insectes: Identification des dégâts et des bio-agresseurs des ceintures maraichères du bord du fleuve Congo. Diplôme d’études Approfondies, Université Marien NGOUABI de Brazzaville (Congo). Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, 64.
[20]	Nkouka Bouesso, J.R. (2016) Contribution à la connaissance de l’entomofaune d’Ignié (PK45). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Marien Ngouabi.
[21]	Makany, L. (1976) Végétation des plateaux téké. Thesis, Université de Brazzaville, 301 p.
[22]	Kimpouni, V., Mbou, P., Gakosso, G. and Motom, M. (2013) Biodiversité floristique du sous-bois et régénération naturelle de la forêt de la Patte d’Oie de Brazzaville, Congo. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7, 1255-1270. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v7i3.31
[23]	Delvare, G. and Aberlenc, P.H. (1989) Les Insectes d’Afrique et d’Amérique tropicale, clés pour la reconnaissance des familles. PRIFAS, Numéro d’impression: 809106. Laboratoire de Faunistique, Montpellier Cedex 01—France, 302.
[24]	Albouy, V. and Caussanel, C. (1990) Dermaptères ou Perce-Oreilles. FFSSN, 50.
[25]	Albouy, V. (1998) Dermaptera 4 4-85: Présentation des perce-oreilles et Clé de détermination des espèces. La lettre de l’atlas entomologique régional (Nantes), 11, 148-153.
[26]	Gavin, M. (2005) Insectes araignées et d’autres Arthropodes terrestres. Larousse, 255.
[27]	Chauvelier, C. and Manil, L. (2012) Guide des Coléoptères: Classement par groupes d’espèces communément observées dans les plantes basses des bords de champs, des jachères et des fiches, Seine et Marne. 36. http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/
[28]	Sarthou, J.P., Sarthou, V. and Speightet, M.C.D. (2021) Clé des 88 genres de Diptères Microdontidae et Syrphidae d’Europe occidentale. Les cahiers scientifiques du Conservatoire d’espaces naturels des Hauts-de-France 60.
[29]	Dajoz, R. (1985) Précis d’écologie. 5éme Édition, Dunod Université, 505.
[30]	Ramade, F. (1984) Eléments d’écologie. Dunod, 689.
[31]	Weesie, P.D.M. and Belemsobgo, U. (1997) Les rapaces diurnes du Ranch de gibier de Nazinga (Burkina Faso). Alauda, 65, 263-278.
[32]	Kherbouche, Y. (2015) Diversité et stratégie d’occupation des groupes entomologiques dans quelques localités en Algérie. Ecole Normale Supérieure d’Ag-El Harrach-Alger. Master’s Thesis, University of Ouargla, Algeria.
[33]	Niang, A.A., Sarr, M. and Faye, K. (2022) Impact de la Grande Muraille Verte Sénégal sur la biodiversité des Insectes dans le Ferlo (Sénégal). Institut fondamental d’Afrique noire Cheikh Anta Diop, Laboratoire de Zoologie des Invertébrés Terrestres, Dakar, 1-17.
[34]	Nageleisen, L.M. and Bouget, C. (2009) L’étude des Insectes en forêt: Méthodes et techniques, éléments essentiels pour une standardisation. Synthèse des réflexions menées par le groupe de travail. Inventaires Entomologiques en Forêt (ONF), 144.
[35]	Ødegaard, F. (2000) How Many Species of Arthropods? Erwin’s Estimate Revised. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 71, 583-597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb01279.x
[36]	Ramade, F. (2008) Dictionnaire Encyclopédique des sciences de la nature et de la biodiversité. Dunod, 726.