Vectors do play a role in healthy ecological system. They may help in pollination, specially their males and more interesting work as commensals for other protozoa, bacteria, fungus, rickettesia and virus. Much of interest provide an opportunity to research for the pattern of disease proliferation in various hosts and natural systems. By suppressing the vectors here will be imbalance  in healthy Eco-system and some new species may emerge that can be more fatal or serious pests.

Removing the vectors, in this case I refer to the insects will to some extend cause a certain shift in the ecosystem balance. Their enemies, those the prey on them, the parasites etc. may turn their attention to new organisms, what if new vectors were to develop from here??? just thinking. Though vectors of disease from our perspective, these organisms have their role in the ecosystem ----

Really, we need far more research into the area. At least with sand flies, the vectors of leishmaniasis, males have been posited to feed on plant nectar sources. Who knows what role they may really play in pollination?!? Of course, nobody has really studied the ecology of these organisms from a different non-disease vantage point because the disease issue is so pressing. As far as mosquitoes, the larva provide a food source for aquatic organisms so perhaps there is some literature out there on trophic effects but I don't know of any myself.

Thanks Muhammad Mazhar Ayaz, Martha Kiarie-Makara, Stavana Strutz for sharing your valuable thoughts...

To the best of my knowledge concerning ticks as vectors of biopathogens for important diseases to man and other animals, I guess their erradication would not have any relevant ecological consequence. 

Thanks Gervasio Henrique Bechara for sharing your experience...

I believe that the greatest concern would be "what might fill the open niche". Removal of a vector from the web would likely be replaced. The consequences, if any, are unknown. We should revisit history and follow that path over time to model the ecological future. Currently, I would favor selective extirpation or that which comes closest to a regional extirpation. For example, Aedes aegypti control by GM male introduction. Seems promising.

In my humbly opinion, the closer answer is the one from Gary Torrisi. There is extense references to this respect. First you have to consider that the host- vector-parasite relationship is a result od a coevolutionary proccess. It occurs withing a natural matrix of enviromental conditions nad interactiosn with some other papulation configuing trcts of trophics structures, so they develop a network sytem that develops continously or discretly in time and space domain. Cosequently a population emoval not neccesarily  convey in a sustitution. However, you must cosider that remove vectors population should be posible in short spaces but in time these spots cam be recolonized from popultion aroun such spots. You can make a serch using hot spót and cold spot in vector borne diseases. I hope it may help some how.

I encourage you to read articles about "dilution effect". This theory linked prevalence of vectore-borne diseases with biodiversity of hosts and also vectors abundance. Especially look for articles of Richard Ostfeld and his team.

All of you seem to be pointing  to a similar though not same direction. May I ask even as we think more about this issue do we have parallel  scenerios in other ecological situations where we could borrow ideas. What about research or record that could help us here. I agree with the researcher who stated that we have always been preoccupied with vector control  that we concentrated  jo

Thanks Gary J. Torrisi, Santiago. Ramos, Krzysztof Dudek and Martha Kiarie-Makara  for your valuable thoughts...

It is better to keep the vectors under control because it is almost impossible to remove it. Anopheles, the malaria vector, has been reduced using pesticides, malaria decreases, but it is still present and pesticides effect as DDT is still a problem. Prevention and keeping away of animals from the vectors is better.

An interesting discussion on this was published in: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

Ali, we have been ingesting, inhaling pesticides that are used for preventing vector borne diseases in some way or the other. My personal experience is getting headache when the DDT is sprayed in our college premises. 

I feel , the best way to keep vectors away is keeping minimum necessary things at home, at work place. Keeping the environment clean, we ca

Sorry about this, 

We can or suppress the vectors but cannot remove it completely. 

 I do agree with Uma jebamani Deaver... I think chemical control should be the last option in controlling or suppressing the vectors population. Irrational use of pesticides is of huge public health concern.

But my question was what if we become successful in removing or suppressing the vectors of vector borne diseases, what implications it would have on the ecosystem...?

Thanks Carlos Marcondes... yes this article highlights few concerns but a lot more research needs to be done. And if we become successful in removing or suppressing one disease vector species, the second vector of that disease might become more lethal but who knows.... Again more research should be done...

Yah, sure the elimination of vector can help eradicating the parasite but this notion varies in different cases.