Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 10;18(3):e0282825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282825

Combined effect of physico-chemical and microbial quality of breeding habitat water on oviposition of malarial vector Anopheles subpictus

Madhurima Seal 1, Soumendranath Chatterjee 1,*
Editor: Cinzia Calvio2
PMCID: PMC10004544  PMID: 36897874

Abstract

Mosquitoes prefer diverse water bodies for egg laying and larval survival. Present study was performed with an objective to characterize physico-chemical properties and microbial profiling of breeding habitat water bodies of Anopheles subpictus mosquitoes. A field survey was accomplished to check the presence of An. subpictus larvae to record per dip larval density in various breeding habitats throughout the year. Physico-chemical and bacteriological properties in relation to mosquito oviposition were assessed. Dissolved oxygen content, pH and alkalinity were found to have major impacts and ponderosity on the prevalence of An. subpictus larvae. Larval density showed significant positive correlation with dissolved oxygen content of water and significant negative correlation with pH and alkalinity of habitat water. Comparatively higher population (cfu/mL) of Bacillus spp. competent with starch hydrolyzing and nitrate reducing properties were recorded all the breeding habitat water bodies of An. subpictus. Higher amplitude of anopheline larvae was portrayed during monsoon and post-monsoon season in clear water with an inclining trend to high dissolved oxygen content and neutral pH. B. cereus, B. megaterium, B. subtilis and B. tequilensis prevalent in all habitat water bodies were marked as oviposition attractants of gravid An. subpictus mosquitoes. Microbial population played key roles in the modulation of physico-chemical parameters of habitat water with a view to enhance its acceptability by gravid mosquitoes in relation to their oviposition. Better understanding of the interactions along with the control of oviposition attractant bacterial strains from mosquito breeding habitats might contribute to the vector management programme.

Introduction

Malaria is a serious vector borne disease which is responsible for millions of deaths in tropical and subtropical countries [1]. Females of different species of Anopheles mosquitoes serve as vectors of malaria parasites due to their blood sucking behavior [2]. Among different species of Anopheles, An. subpictus is reported as one of the important vectors of malarial diseases from different parts of the world [36]. Breeding of An. subpictus occurs in a variety of habitats, including stagnant or flowing water bodies having clear or turbid water, brackish or fresh water, water bodies of ponds, lake, polluted water of cement cisterns and submerged rice-fields etc. [7, 8]. Besides human habitations, adult forms of An. subpictus frequently occur in cattle sheds [9, 10]. Prevalence of these mosquito vectors depends upon availability of suitable breeding habitats. Different species of mosquitoes have been reported to prefer habitat water with diverse physico-chemical characteristics for their egg laying and larval survival [11, 12]. Even the same species of mosquitoes from different geographic regions have also been found to favour dissimilar type of water bodies [13]. A recent malarial resurgence was reported from different rural and urban areas of Hooghly district [14]. Plasmodium falciparum cases were maily reported from urban areas, whereas Plasmodium vivax cases were reported from rural areas of Hooghly district [14]. Another study by Amitabha and co-workers reported annual parasitic index (API) for malarial cases were highest in Pandua block of Hooghly district [15].

Numerous research studies have indicated that physico-chemical parameters of larval habitat water have great influence in several life history stages of mosquito vectors including larval survival, time of development and adult fitness [16, 17]. Among these physico-chemical parameters dissolved oxygen content (D.O), alkalinity, pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), hardness, conductivity of water and presence of different ions like chloride (Cl-), nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO43-) etc. are recorded to affect the oviposition of different mosquito species like An. barbirostris, An. gambiae, An. vagus, An. stephensi, An. arabiensis etc. [18, 19]. Some of these parameters showed strong positive correlation with the larval abundance [20, 21].

In addition to physico-chemical parameters, bacteriological features of water also have significant influence in the modulation of oviposition behaviour of gravid female mosquitoes [22, 23]. The bacterial flora present in the habitat water have the ability to modulate the physico-chemical quality of water [24, 25], thus making it more or less suitable for survival of different mosquito species. On one hand, these breeding habitat bacteria serve as a direct food source for mosquito larvae [26] and on the other hand, these bacteria release some volatiles, which act as chemical attractants for oviposition of gravid female mosquitoes [27, 28]. Several studies indicated that killing of these bacteria by sterilization technique or addition of effective antibiotics to the breeding habitat water led to a reduction in ovipositional response by adult gravid female mosquitoes [2931].

There is very scanty information available about the breeding and larval habitat characteristics of malarial vector An. subpictus. Mosquito control strategy depends basically on larval control. Various strategies applied for mosquito larval control will become much more effective, only when there is complete knowledge about their habitat characteristics. At the same time, it is also essential to identify the biological organisms such as bacteria of habitat water, which produce a preferred environment for the mosquito larvae, because killing or effective management of these organisms will certainly reduce mosquito oviposition and larval survival in the environment, That’s why our study is focused whether both biological and chemical breeding habitat parameters have influenced the propagation and multiplication of this particular rural malarial vector species. So, the present study has been aimed to determine the significant physico-chemical characteristics as well as the microbial markers with a special reference to oviposition attractant bacterial strains having a positive influence towards the oviposition behaviour of gravid female An. subpictus mosquitoes.

Materials and methodology

Study area and study period

The study was conducted in four seasons viz., summer (Mar’17-May’17), monsoon (Jun’17-Aug’17), post-monsoon (Sept’17-Nov’17) and winter (Dec’17-Feb’18) in four blocks viz., Tarakeswar, Singur, Chinsurah-Mogra and Panduah of Hooghly district West Bengal, India (23° 01´ 20” N to 22° 39´32” N and 87°30´ 20” E to 88° 30´ 15” E). This district is located at the sea level and has a tropical wet and dry climate. Average annual temperature of this district is 30.44°C and it receives average 82.25 mm rain fall annually.

Field survey & collection of habitat water

Suspected water bodies (ponds, drains and rice-fields) of the study areas were checked randomly for the presence of Anopheles subpictus larvae. Samples were collected from those water bodies, where larval prevalence of An. subpictus were recorded during the study period (Fig 1). No invasive test data was collected during field survey. Only the mosquito larval prevalence was recorded in the water bodies without hampering the normal aquatic flora and fauna of the breeding habitats surveyed. So, no permits were necessary for the field survey and water collection. Twenty replicas were taken per aquatic body type. Twenty five dips were taken with a standard dipper of 250 mL capacity where An. subpictus larvae were prevalent. Per dip larval density of An. subpictus in each breeding habitat was recorded. Absence of any larvae in a waterbody even after 25 dips was considered as negative. Same mosquito breeding habitats were used for physico-chemical and bacterial sampling from where the larval collection was done, as bacterial composition definitely interferes with the oviposition of gravid female mosquitoes. Water samples from breeding habitats were collected in separate sterile bottles and brought to the Parasitology & Microbiology Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan for both physico-chemical and bacteriological analyses.

Fig 1. Different types of aquatic bodies surveyed during the study period.

Fig 1

A: pond water, B: drain water, C: rice-field water.

Analysis of physico-chemical parameters of water

Some of the parameters like pH, temperature, total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity (E.C) of water were estimated at the time of collection by hand held pH meter, temperature/tds meter and conductivity meter respectively. For estimation of dissolved oxygen (D.O) content, water sample was collected in a stoppered bottle and fixed. Later the D.O content of water was measured in the laboratory by titrimetric method following standard protocol [32]. Turbidity of the water was measured by digital turbidity meter (LABARD, model no: LIM221) in the laboratory. Other physico-chemical parameters like alkalinity, hardness and concentration of chloride (Cl-), nitrate (NO3-) & phosphate (PO4-) were estimated in the laboratory by titrimetric method following standard protocol [32]. Average values with standard error (mean ± S.E) were calculated.

Analysis of bacterial populations of water

Abundances of different groups of bacterial populations (aerobic heterotrophic, Bacillus group, Gram negative, protein hydrolyzing bacteria, starch hydrolyzing bacteria & nitrate reducing bacteria) in the habitat water were determined as colony forming unit (cfu/mL). Water samples were serially diluted with sterilized distilled water and 20–100 μL of diluted sample water was mixed with 25 mL of sterilized media. Then sample mixed media were poured on sterilized petri plates and incubated in a biological oxygen demand (B.O.D) incubator for 24–48 h for colony formation.

For enumeration of aerobic heterotrophic bacterial population, nutrient agar medium was used. For the enumeration of Gram negative and Bacillus group of bacterial populations MacConkey agar and Hicrome Bacillus agar media were used respectively. To determine the starch hydrolyzing bacterial population, colonies grown over starch agar plates were flooded with freshly prepared iodine solutions and colonies that exhibited clear zone surrounding the growth, were counted as positive bacterial colony for starch hydrolysis. For the determination of protein hydrolyzing bacterial populations, colonies grown over gelatin agar media were flooded with freshly prepared mercuric chloride (HgCl2) solution and the colonies that exhibited clear zone were counted as positive for protein hydrolysis. To determine nitrate reducing bacterial populations, colonies formed over nitrate agar medium were flooded with α-napthol and sulphanilic acid (1:1) and colonies that turned to pink colour were counted as positive for nitrate reduction. Each experiment was performed in triplicate and average number of colonies and standard error (S.E) were calculated. Then in each case colony forming unit (cfu) was calculated by following formula:

cfu=Totalnumberofcolonies×dilutionfactor/Volumeadded

Processing of water samples for bacterial isolation

The water samples were serially diluted (up to 10−3 dilution) with sterile distilled water and then 40 μL of each diluted samples were mixed separately with 25 mL of sterile and moderately cooled nutrient agar media (Peptone: Beef extract: NaCl: Agar at 5:3:3:18 g/l) and then plated on separate sterile petri plates and incubated in a B.O.D incubator at 32±1ºC for 24–48 h to obtain isolated colonies. To obtain pure culture of bacteria, quadrant streaking technique was employed. Pure cultures of bacteria were maintained on sterile agar slants and stored in refrigerator for further characterizations.

Phenotypic characterizations of bacterial isolates

Colony characters (size, shape, colour, opacity, elevation, margin etc.) of the bacterial isolates on nutrient agar media were studied following standard methodologies [3335]. Gram’s staining was carried out to observe the shape and Gram characters of the vegetative cells of the bacterial isolates and endospore staining was performed with malachite green followed by counter staining with safranin to detect the presence of bacterial endospores.

Bio-chemical characterizations of bacterial isolates

Different biochemical properties of bacterial isolates such as production of catalase, indole, methyl red test, vogues proskauer test, citrate utilization, nitrate reduction, urease production, oxidase tests and production of extracellular enzymes like amylase (starch hydrolysis test), lipase (fat hydrolysis test), gelatinase (protein hydrolysis test) were performed following standard methodology [36]. Motility of the bacterial strains were recorded in sulfide indole motility agar medium.

Ovipositional bioassay

Mosquito rearing

Anopheline larvae were collected from different natural breeding habitats in rural areas of Hooghly district with the help of standard dipper of 250 mL capacity [37] and brought to the Parasitology & Microbiology Research Laboratory, The University of Burdwan in live condition. In the laboratory, the mosquito larvae were maintained in plastic trays kept in mosquito cages containing natural breeding habitat water at 28±2ºC temperature and 75±5% relative humidity until the pupa formation. The larvae were fed with Brewer’s yeast, algae collected from pond water and dog biscuits in the ratio of 3:1:1 [38]. Pupae were transferred in another white coloured plastic cups of 250 mL capacity containing natural breeding habitat water and the cups were placed in mosquito rearing cages until the emergence of adult mosquitoes. The whole experimental setup was maintained at 28±2ºC temperature and 75±5% relative humidity in an environmental chamber. After emergence of adult mosquitoes, they were identified following the standard keys [7]. The adult Anopheles subpictus mosquitoes were offered 10% sucrose solution in cotton pads and allowed to mate freely. Then 3–5 days old females were given blood meal in order to mature their eggs. Then fully gravid female An. subpictus mosquitoes were selected and separated in another cage for further ovipositional bioassay.

Setting up cages to study mosquito oviposition

Ovipositional bioassay was conducted to evaluate the ability of resident bacterial isolates, which were prevalent all through the year in the natural breeding habitat water bodies of An. subpictus mosquitoes to modulate the ovipositional behavior of adult gravid An. subpictus. The purified bacterial colonies were inoculated separately on 100 mL of sterilized nutrient broth media and incubated at 32±1ºC in a B.O.D shaker incubator for 16–18 h. One uninoculed nutrient broth was kept for control. Ten adult gravid females An. subpictus were released in a mosquito raring cage (30 cm × 30 cm × 30 cm) and they were offered dual choice for oviposition in a cage. In each cage two oviposition cups were placed diagonally at a distance of 21 cm. One cup having 95 mL of sterile distilled water with 5 mL of one type of bacterial suspension which served as a test cup and another cup containing 100 mL of sterile distilled water which served as a control. In another cage, one cup was kept having 95 mL of sterile distilled water + 5 mL mixed suspension of all common bacterial isolates. Five replications were done for each of the tests. The whole experimental set up was maintained in an environmental chamber at 28±2ºC temperature and 75±5% relative humidity at 12:12 h (light: dark) photoperiod in the Parasitology and Microbiology Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan. The number of eggs laid in different test cups and control cups were recorded on the next two consecutive days.

The oviposition activity index (OAI) was calculated using the following formula [39].

OvipositionActivityIndexOAI=numberofeggslaidintestcupsNTnumberofeggsincontrolcupsNC/numberofeggslaidintestcupsNT+numberofeggsincontrolcupsNC.

Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analysis of bacterial isolates

Bacterial isolates towards which gravid An. subpictus mosquitoes showed significant oviposition attractancy were further selected for molecular analysis. The bacterial isolates were streaked on separate sterilized nutrient agar plates and incubated at 32±1ºC for 24 h in a B.O.D incubator to obtain isolated colonies. On the next day, liquid culture of bacterial isolates were prepared by inoculating isolated colonies in separate sterile nutrient broth medium and incubating at 30±1ºC for 24 h in a B.O.D shaker incubator. The genomic DNA of bacteria was extracted following standard protocol [40]. 1.8 mL of each bacterial broth was taken in separate sterile centrifuge tube of 2 mL capacity and centrifuged at 10,000× for 30 sec at room temperature to obtain the bacterial pellets. Then the genomic DNA of the bacterial isolates were isolated by DNeasy Ultra Clean Microbial Kit (Qiagen) from the respective pellets of the bacterial isolates. After that ~1.5 kb rDNA fragment of bacterial genomic DNA were amplified using 27F (5′AGAGTTTGATCATGGCTCAG 3′) forward and 1492R (5′GGT TAC CTT GTT ACG ACTT3′) primer by polymerase chain reaction (one cycle at 94°C for 5 min, then at 94°C for 5 min, thirty five cycles at 58°C for 1 min, 72°C for 1 min and then for 7 min) and PCR products were purified using MinElute PCR purification kit (Qiagen). Agarose gel electrophoresis was done to visualize PCR purified DNA products and the PCR products were sequenced bi-directionally by DNA sequencer using universal bacterial forward and reverse primer. Sequenced data were aligned and analyzed by MEGA X software [41]. Phylogenetic trees of the bacterial isolates were created by neighbour-joining (NJ) and maximum likelihood (ML) method [42].

Scanning electron microscopy of oviposition attractant bacterial isolates

Surface structure of vegetative cells and bacterial endospores were observed through scanning electron microscope. For vegetative cells, a thin smear from freshly prepared liquid bacterial cultures were prepared over cover glasses, whereas for endospores, smear was prepared over cover glasses from 3–4 weeks old bacterial culture. Then the bacterial smear was dried by gently passing them over flame for 4–5 times. Then the cells were fixed chemically in 2.5% glutaraldehyde solution for 45 min and after that they were gradually dehydrated through graded alcohol (30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 100%) for 5–7 min in each. Finally, they were transferred in isoamyl alcohol for final dehydration for 5 min. Then the cells were dried in air, coated with gold particle and scanned through scanning electron microscope (Sigma 300, ZEISS).

Carbohydrate fermentation test of oviposition attractant bacterial isolates

Release of oviposition attractant volatiles is associated with bacterial fermentation of different carbohydrate sources. So, the ability of the bacterial isolates to ferment twenty different carbohydrate sources like Galactose (Ga), Inositol (IS), Mannitol (Mn), Arabinose (Ar), Cellobiose (Ce), Trehalose (Te), Dulcitol (Du), Sucrose (Su), Raffinose (Rf), Dextrose (De), Melibiose (Mb), Sorbitol (Sb), Xylose (Xy), Fructose (Fc), Rhamnose (Rh), Lactose (La), Adonitol (Ad), Mannose (Mo), Salicin (Sa), Inulin (In) were examined over phenol red agar media using sugar fermentation disc (25 mg/disc).

Antibiotic sensitivity test of oviposition attractant bacterial isolates

Sensitivity of bacterial isolates to twenty different types of commercially available standard antibiotic disc like Kanamycin (30 μg/disc), Bacitracin (10 μg/disc), Amoxicillin (10 μg/disc), Nalidixic acid (30 μg/disc), Ampicillin (10 μg/disc), Penicillin (10 μg/disc), Chloramphenicol (30 μg/disc), Levofloxacin (5 μg/disc), Gentamicin (50 μg/disc), Neomycin (30 μg/disc), Ofloxacin (5 μg/disc), Norfloxacin (10 μg/disc), Tetracycline (30 μg/disc), Ciprofloxacin (5 μg/disc), Vancomycin (30 μg/disc), Rifampicin (5 μg/disc), Azithromycin (30 μg/disc), Erythromycin (15 μg/disc), Streptomycin (10 μg/disc), Doxycycline (30 μg/disc) were checked over mullar-hinton agar plate by disc diffusion method [43]. This test was performed to determine the potent antibiotics which could have a significant antibacterial effect and have the ability to kill or eliminate particular bacterial strains performing as microbial markers for the oviposition of gravid female An. subpictus mosquitoes in their natural breeding habitat water bodies.

Physiological tolerance test of oviposition attractant bacterial isolates

Physiological properties of oviposition attractant bacterial isolates like sodium chloride (NaCl) tolerance, growth at different temperature and pH of the culture media were recorded following standard methodologies [35, 44, 45]. For temperature tolerance test, the bacterial isolates were inoculated separately in sterilized nutrient broth media and were incubated in B.O.D. shaker incubator for 24 h at different temperatures (15°C, 20°C, 25°C, 30°C, 35°C, 40°C, 45°C). After the incubation period, amount of bacterial growth was recorded by taking optical density (O.D) at 600 nm. For pH tolerance test bacterial isolates were inoculated separately in sterilized nutrient broth having varying pH (5–11) and were incubated in B.O.D. shaker incubator for 24 h at 32±1°C. After the incubation period, amount of bacterial growth was recorded by taking O.D at 600 nm. NaCl tolerance test was performed by inoculating the bacterial isolates in sterilized nutrient broth with varying NaCl concentration (upto 5%) and bacterial growth was measured by recording O.D at 600 nm after 24 h of incubation period in a B.O.D shaker incubator at 32±1°C.

Statistical analysis

Effect of habitat types and season on larval density of An. subpictus was assayed by non parametric Friedman test using SPSS 20.0 software. One-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc tukey test was conducted to evaluate significant differences of physico-chemical parameters among habitat type (ponds, drains & rice-fields) during summer, monsoon & post-monsoon seasons and Mann-Whitney test was performed for significant differences in physicochemical parameters between ponds and drains in winter season using GraphPad Prism 9.0.0 software following Zar [46]. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted to explore the physico-chemical factors that are responsible for variations of larval density in habitat waters in four different seasons (summer, monsoon, post-monsoon & winter) and Pearson’s correlation test with Holms-Bonferroni correction was done between larval density and all the physico-chemical parameters of habitat water using PAST 4.03 software. A generalized linear model (GLM) has been constructed with larval density as dependent variable and all physico-chemical parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids, total hardness, electrical conductivity, chloride, nitrate and phosphate) as predictors. We used sigma restricted parameterization and type VI sum of square to calculate the coefficient of prediction equation using Statistica 12 software. Paired t test was performed to determine any significant differences in number of eggs laid by gravid An. subpictus mosquitoes between control cups and test cups using GraphPad Prism 9.0.0 software [46].

Results

Larval density of Anopheles subpictus

Among different types of habitats surveyed, pond water was found to harbour much higher density of An. subpictus larvae than rice fields and drains in all the four seasons studied and the larval prevalence was found higher during post-monsoon months, followed by monsoon and summer, whereas in winter season larval density was recorded to be lowest (Table 1). Details of larval density in different habitat types have been listed in S1 File. During winter season, due to absence of water, the rice field areas could not serve as potential breeding habitats for mosquito larvae. Results of Friedman test revealed that both season and habitat type significantly influenced larval density of An. subpictus mosquitoes (X2 (3) = 88.91, p<0.0001) (S1A & S1B Table).

Table 1. Seasonwise per-dip larval density (Mean ± S.D) of Anopheles subpictus in different breeding habitats (March 2017-February 2018).

Habitat types Summer Monsoon Post-monsoon Winter
Pond 10.05± 1.16 15.16± 6.46 16.54± 4.42 4.02± 1.21
Drain 0.8± 0.78 2.25± 1.30 1.12± 0.92 0.46± 0.39
Rice-field 1.07± 0.55 1.57± 0.76 1.3± 0.61 0.00± 0.00

Physico-chemical characterizations of breeding habitats

Physico-chemical parameters (mean ± S.E) of different breeding habitat water bodies (pond, rice-fields & drain) in four seasons (summer, monsoon, post-monsoon & winter) are summarized in Table 2. Details of the data have been given in S1 File. During the whole study dissolve oxygen (D.O) content was found higher in pond and rice-field water than drain water, whereas, alkalinity and pH were found comparatively higher in more turbid drain water than less turbid pond and rice-field water bodies. Besides these drain water was found to be more hard containing more amount of nitrtate (NO3-) and phosphate (PO4-) ions than comparatively less hard pond and rice-field water. Drain water was found to contain more total dissolved solid (TDS) and had higher conductivity than rice-field and pond water (Table 2).

Table 2. Seasonwise physico-chemical parameters (Mean±S.E) of different habitat waterbodies of Anopheles subpictus.

Parameter Summer Monsoon Post-monsoon Winter
Pond Dain Rice- field Pond Dain Rice- field Pond Dain Rice- field Pond Dain Rice- field
Temperature (°C) 31.29 ± 0.21 30.97 ± 0.17 30.3 ± 0.23 28.26 ± 0.19 28.49 ± 0.15 28.67 ± 0.16 27.79 ± 0.21 27.18 ± 0.21 28.17 ± 0.06 21.75 ± 0.23 20.74 ± 0.22 -
D.O (mg/L) 6.81 ± 0.13 4.44 ± 0.15 6.39 ± 0.08 7.79 ± 0.24 4.21 ± 0.14 7.34 ± 0.07 7.59 ± 0.14 4.57 ± 0.10 7.29 ± 0.08 7.38 ± 0.13 4.62 ± 0.15 -
Alk (mg/L) 133.5 ± 4.13 292.2 ± 5.50 183.9 ± 5 3.71 131.25 ± 9.25 239.95 ± 9.51 180.2 ± 2.78 125.9 ± 2.47 256.6 ± 55.84 228.7 ± 2.47 164.5 ± 4.43 260.9 ± 6.81 -
pH 7.01 ± 0.04 8.02 ± 0.03 7.54 ± 0.03 6.88 ± 0.08 7.95 ± 0.10 7.02 ± 0.02 6.96 ± 0.03 7.77 ± 0.05 7.25 ± 0.04 6.9 ± 0.08 7.85 ± 0.17 -
Turb (NTU) 3.58 ± 0.20 9.31 ± 0.41 4.21 ± 0.13 3.57 ± 0.29 10.16 ± 0.40 3.23 ± 0.06 3.83 ± 0.22 10.97 ± 0.41 4.04 ± 0.11 3.01 ± 0.15 9.52 ± 0.45 -
TDS (mg/L) 319.75 ± 8.53 474.4 ± 33.37 196.2 ± 3.79 350.75 ± 19.20 559.55 ± 22.48 404.8 ± 4.52 273.25 ± 17.41 413.35 ± 10.85 248.05 ± 6.77 229 ± 10.00 360 ± 17.45 -
T.H (mg/L) 235.8 ± 10.82 345.45 ± 19.07 212.45 ± 5.53 160.8 ± 10.34 411.85 ± 25.89 113.35 ± 2.38 234.15 ± 10.58 439.45 ± 22.83 133.95 ± 3.17 206.35 ± 11.22 395.7 ± 22.58 -
E.C (μs/cm) 272.1 ± 11.53 347.6 ± 24.59 278.05 ± 12.95 279.1 ± 12.27 391.5 ± 22.28 185.7 ± 5.36 332.15 ± 13.32 507.6 ± 25.02 375.9 ± 5.40 232 ± 11.86 313.25 ± 14.46 -
Cl- (ppm) 38.01 ± 2.70 40.22 ± 2.26 34.38 ± 1.00 41.22 ± 2.21 38.34 ± 1.30 40.83 ± 1.33 47.90 ± 2.85 49.84 ± 3.31 47.91 ± 1.55 40.91 ± 3.00 41.44 ± 2.57 -
NO3- (ppm) 0.06 ± 0.007 2.88 ± 0.36 0.15 ± 0.03 0.22 ± 0.03 2.82 ± 0.36 0.42 ± 0.04 0.34 ± 0.05 3.86 ± 0.29 0.95 ± 0.05 0.05 ± 0.007 2.13 ± 0.27 -
PO4- (ppm) 0.24 ± 0.03 4.02 ± 0.48 0.73 ± 0.07 0.26 ± 0.03 2.49 ± 0.35 0.68 ± 0.06 1.36 ± 0.16 3.54 ± 0.32 1.14 ± 0.15 0.18 ± 0.02 2.33 ± 0.28 -

The values are average (mean± S.E) of twenty habitats.

* Due to absence of water in the rice-fields of study areas, it could not be transformed into larval habitat during winter season.

Where, temp = water temperature, Alk = alkalinity, D.O = dissolved oxygen, E.C. = electrical conductivity, T.H = total hardness, TDS = total dissolved solids, Turb = turbidity, Cl- = chloride content, PO4- = phosphate content, NO3- = Nitrate content.

Results of one way ANOVA indicated that the physico-chemical parameters like dissolved oxygen (D.O), pH, alkalinity, total dissolved solids (tds), turbidity, hardness & conductivity and concentration of nitrate (NO3-) & phosphate (PO4-) showed significant differences between various habitat types viz. ponds, drains & rice-fields during summer (ANOVA, p<0.001), monsoon (ANOVA, p<0.001) & post-monsoon (ANOVA, p<0.001). Results of Mann-Whitney test also indicated that these physico-chemical parameters differ significantly between ponds and drains during winter season (Mann-Whitney test, p<0.001). Only the concentration of chloride ion did not show any significant variation between these habitats during summer, monsoon, post-monsoon (ANOVA, p>0.05) & winter (Mann-Whitney test, p>0.05). Temperature of habitat water also showed significant variations among different habitat types during summer (ANOVA, p = 0.0051), post-monsoon (ANOVA, p = 0.0011) & winter (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.0029) seasons, but did not show any significant variation during monsoon season (ANOVA, p = 0.2536) (S2A–S2C to S5A–S5C Tables). Significant differences among these physico-chemical parameters between habitat types during summer, monsoon, post-monsoon and winter have been depicted in Figs 25.

Fig 2. Physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types during summer season.

Fig 2

An asterisk above given bar indicates significant difference. ‘****’ indicates p<0.0001, ‘***’ indicates p<0.001, ‘**’ indicates p< 0.01, ‘ns’ indicates p>0.05.

Fig 5. Physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types during winter season.

Fig 5

An asterisk above given bar indicates significant difference. ‘****’ indicates p<0.0001, ‘***’ indicates p<0.001, ‘**’ indicates p< 0.01, ‘ns’ indicates p>0.05.

Fig 3. Physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types during monsoon season.

Fig 3

An asterisk above given bar indicates significant difference. ‘****’ indicates p<0.0001, ‘***’ indicates p<0.001, ‘**’ indicates p< 0.01, ‘ns’ indicates p>0.05.

Fig 4. Physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types during post-monsoon season.

Fig 4

An asterisk above given bar indicates significant difference. ‘****’ indicates p<0.0001, ‘***’ indicates p<0.001, ‘**’ indicates p< 0.01, ‘ns’ indicates p>0.05.

Principle component analysis revealed the relationship between physico-chemical parameters of water and their associations with the larval density of An. subpictus mosquito (Fig 6A–6D). In case of summer the two major components of PCA (F1 and F2) together contributed 71.10% of the total variance (56.33% and 14.78% variation explained by F1 and F2 respectively) (Fig 6A). In this case the major factors that contributed F1 were turbidity (13.25%) followed by D.O (12.81%), nitrate (11.41%), alkalinity (11.08%) and phosphate (10.40%). The major factors responsible for construction of F2 were chloride (22.79%) followed by L.D (19.83%). Nitrate (0.87), alkalinity (0.86), phosphate (0.83), hardness (0.82), pH (0.81), TDS (0.75), and conductivity (0.60) were found to positively corelated with F1, whereas, D.O (-0.93) & L.D (-0.65) were found to be negatively correlated with F1. On the other hand chloride (0.63), L.D (0.59) & TDS (0.52) were found to be positively correlated with F2, while pH (-0.48) & alkalinity (-0.34) were negatively corelated with F2 (S6A–S6C Table). During monsoon season F1 and F2 together contributed 72.55% of the total variance (60.53% and 12.02% variation explained by F1 and F2 respectively) (Fig 6B). Here, the major contributing factors of F1 were turbidity (12.48%) followed by hardness (12.18%), D.O (11.94%), nitrate (10.54%), pH (10.48%) and phosphate (10.35%), whereas factors that contributed in F2 mostly were temperature (34.30%) & L.D (31.94%). In this plot, parameters that showed positive association with F1 were turbidity (0.95), hardness (0.94), nitrate (0.87), pH (0.87), phosphate (0.86) & alkalinity (0.84), whereas negative association of F1 was found with D.O (-0.93) & L.D (-0.55). F2 showed positive association with temperature (0.70) & alkalinity (0.36) and negative association with L.D (-0.67) & conductivity (-0.43) (S7A–S7C Table). During post-monsoon season F1 and F2 together contributed 73.83% of the total variance (60.59% and 13.24% variation explained by F1 and F2 respectively) (Fig 6C). Here major contributing factors for F1 were turbidity (12.24%), nitrate (11.90%), D.O (11.63%) & hardness (10.07%). The major factors contributing F2 were L.D (29.82%) & alkalinity (23.52%). Parameters that showed positive corelation with F1 were turbidity (0.94), nitrate (0.93), hardness (0.85), conductivity (0.84), phosphate (0.83) & TDS (0.82), whereas, negative correlation with F1 were shown by D.O (-0.92) & LD (-0.62). On the other hand L.D (0.68) & alkalinity (-0.61) showed positive & negative correlation respectively with F2 (S8A–S8C Table). During winter season the F1 and F2 together showed 71.73% of the total variance (60.96% and 10.77% variation explained by F1 and F2 respectively) (Fig 6D). In this case, alkalinity contributed most (12.04%) for F1 followed by D.O (11.66%), turbidity (11.24%) & L.D (10.87%), whereas for F2 two major contributing factors were chloride (52.89%) & temperature (29.03%). Here positive correlation with F1 were shown by alkalinity (0.93), turbidity (0.90), phosphate (0.85), nitrate (0.84) & hardness (0.83), whereas, D.O (-0.92) & L.D (-0.89) showed negative correlation with F1. On the other hand, parameters like chloride (0.82) & temperature (-0.61) showed positive & negative correlation respectively with F2 (S9A–S9C Table). In all the four seasons larval density (L.D) showed positive association with the dissolved oxygen (D.O) content of water. Larval density of all four seasons showed orthogonal location with chloride content (Cl-) of habitat water which indicated no significant correlation between them. Temperature variation of habitat water, irrespective of habitat types did not show any significant influence on larval density in a particular season. Rest of the physico-chemical parameters such as alkalinity, pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), total hardness, electrical conductivity, nitrate (NO3-) & phosphate (PO4-) content showed opposite direction of larval density, indicated negative correlation of these parameters with the larval density (Fig 6A–6D).

Fig 6. Principal component analysis showing the relationship between the physicochemical parameters of water and the larval density of Anopheles subpictus (A = summer, B = monsoon, C = post-monsoon, D = winter).

Fig 6

Pearson correlation indicated significant correlation of larval density of An. subpictus with physico-chemical parameters of habitat water in different seasons. Larval density of An. subpictus showed significant positive correlation with dissolved oxygen content of habitat water and significant negative correlation with alkalinity of habitat water in all the four seasons (Table 3).

Table 3. Correlation between larval density of Anopheles subpictus and physicochemical parameters of habitat water.

Parameter Summer Monsoon Post-monsoon Winter
r value p value r value p value r value p value r value p value
Temperature 0.27236 1 -0.30865 1 -0.04533 1 0.29563 1
pH -0.82034 6.99E-14* -0.44403 0.028182 -0.63416 3.52E-06* -0.57601 0.006636*
Alkalinity -0.71716 7.58E-09* -0.72865 4.01E-09* -0.87316 6.22E-18* -0.86135 6.50E-11*
D.O 0.63089 4.32E-06* 0.58082 9.35E-05* 0.60058 2.59E-05* 0.93816 2.82E-17*
Conductivity -0.26941 1 -0.066031 1 -0.5321 0.00079961* -0.50269 0.062527*
Hardness -0.323 0.78081 -0.31125 1 -0.20706 1 -0.73508 4.36E-06*
TDS -0.10393 1 -0.44958 0.023368 -0.31199 1 -0.59929 0.0028963*
Turbidity -0.56463 0.00017244* -0.43598 0.03678 -0.47284 0.0089892* -0.87773 6.92E-12*
Chloride 0.013432 1 0.12051 1 -0.10912 1 0.02208 1
Phosphate -0.51092 0.0019996* -0.42093 0.059474 -0.34836 0.42097 -0.69932 3.41E-05*
Nitrate -0.45911 0.014821 -0.38644 0.16509 -0.56364 0.00018109* -0.70556 2.43E-05*

The values given here are Pearson’s correlation (r) and significance level (p).

Values (r) in bold and asterisk (*) above a given value (p) indicates significant correlation at p = <0.01 after Holms-Bonferroni correction.

The results of GLM analysis showed that there was a significant interaction of larval density (L.D) of An. subpictus with pH (F = 5.60, p = 0.01), D.O (F = 26.70, p = 0.000001) & alkalinity (F = 72.47, p = 0.000000) of habitat water (S10A–S10C Table and Fig 7). The adjusted R2 value for selected model is 0.59 (F = 29.93, p = 0.001). Prediction equation from this model is L.D = 19.5339256726 + 0.130674497035 × "Temperature" + 2.05506521603 × pH -0.0788381332804 × "Alkalinity" + 2.32091156053 × "D.O" + 0.00151644594031 × "Conductivity" + 0.00622796606098 × Hardness + 0.00326658747068 × TDS + 0.448792969762 × "Turbidity" + 0.0133691992506 × Chloride + 0.377903805823 × "Phosphate" -0.0483529968281 × Nitrate (S10 Table).

Fig 7. Observed vs. predicted values of larval density according to Generalized Linear Model (GLM) (Multiple R2 value 0.61).

Fig 7

Populations of different bacterial groups in breeding habitats

Different groups of bacterial populations (×103 cfu/mL of water) viz, aerobic heterotrophic, Bacillus, Gram negative, protein hydrolyzing, starch hydrolyzing & nitrate reducing bacteria in different types of habitat water viz., pond, drain & rice-field in four different seasons have been depicted in Table 4 (S1 Fig). Details of data have been listed in S2 File. Pond water that exhibited higher larval density of An. subpictus, were also recorded to have comparatively higher populations of Bacillus group of bacteria in all the four seasons during the study period.

Table 4. Season wise different groups of bacterial populations in the form of colony forming unit (cfu) in the breeding habitats of Anopheles subpictus mosquitoes.

Season Habitat type A.H Bacillus G.N P.H S.H N.R
(Mean±S.E) (Mean± S.E) (Mean± S.E) (Mean± S.E) (Mean± S.E) (Mean± S.E)
SUMMER POND WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 52.58±1.15 32.05±1.25 1.48±0.09 0.94± 0.05 5.36±0.20 3.39± 0.19
RICE-FIELD WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 48.75±0.67 27.01±0.49 1.15±0.12 0.98±0.05 2.74± 0.07 1.57±0.14
DRAIN WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 58.56±1.90 24.55±1.19 2.73±0.21 1.01±0.05 4.85±0.12 2.77±0.16
MONSOON POND WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 56.61±2.46 29.26±2.48 2.69± 0.11 1.06± 0.07 8.18±0.46 3.41± 0.15
RICE-FIELD WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 46.67±0.87 23.26±0.95 1.90±0.18 0.87± 0.06 5.42±0.19 1.55±0.10
DRAIN WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 60.76±2.14 23.16±1.70 4.68± 0.24 0.85± 0.04 4.89±0.27 2.05± 0.15
POST-MONSOON POND WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 40.88±2.57 16.29±0.99 1.31±0.09 0.75± 0.04 4.33±0.27 2.36±0.21
RICE-FIELD WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 33.12± 2.10 8.35±0.29 0.80± 0.06 0.79± 0.04 3.38± 0.19 0.87±0.04
DRAIN WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 51.92± 2.68 10.39±0.44 2.34±0.19 0.86± 0.05 4.84±0.19 2.72± 0.17
WINTER POND WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 22.47± 0.86 7.69±0.60 0.85±0.04 0.58±0.04 3.39± 0.15 1.15± 0.05
DRAIN WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) 32.92± 1.86 5.16±0.34 1.01±0.03 0.68±0.04 2.30± 0.12 1.12±0.05
RICE-FIELD WATER (cfu/mL×10^3) - - - - - -

The values are averages (mean ± S.E) of twenty replications.

A.H.- Aerobic Heterotrophic bacteria, G.N.-Gram Negative bacteria, P.H.- Protein Hydrolyzing bacteria, S.H.- Starch Hydrolyzing bacteria, N.R.- Nitrate Reducing bacteria.

Bacterial characterizations of breeding habitats

During one year study period, microbiological examinations of different breeding habitats of anopheline larvae revealed altogether twenty-five bacterial isolates and they were named as HABW1, HABW2, HABW3, HABW4, HABW5, HABW6, HABW7, HABW8, HABW9, HABW10, HABW11, HABW12, HABW13, HABW14, HABW15, HABW16, HABW17, HABW18, HABW19, HABW20, HABW21, HABW22, HABW23, HABW24 and HABW25. Out of which eight bacterial isolates (HABW1, HABW3, HABW4, HABW6, HABW10, HABW12, HABW14 and HABW15) were screened from all the breeding habitat water irrespective of habitat type in the presence of anopheline larvae throughout the year. Colony morphologies of these bacterial isolates have been provided in Table 5.

Table 5. Colony characteristics of common bacterial isolates from breeding habitats of Anopheles subpictus mosquitoes.

SI No. Name of isolates Colony Characters
Shape Size (mm) (Mean±S.D) Opacity Elevation Consistency Margin Colour
1 HABW1 Irregular 3.52±0.35 Opaque Slightly elevated Buttery Wavy Off white
2 HABW3 Round 2.56±0.32 Opaque Flat Mucoid Irregular Greenish white
3 HABW4 Round 2.46±0.27 Opaque Slightly elevated Mucoid Smooth Yellowish White
4 HABW6 Round 2.04±0.13 Opaque Elevated Moist Smooth Creamy white
5 HABW10 Irregular 2.62±0.23 Opaque Flat Dry Wrinkled White
6 HABW12 Round 2.12±0.28 Opaque Slightly elevated Moist Smooth Greyish white
7 HABW14 Round 2.34±0.20 Opaque Flat Dry Undulate White
8 HABW15 Round 1.62± 0.23 Opaque Elevated Mucoid Smooth Pale yellow

Staining properties of bacterial isolates

Among these eight bacterial isolates, four isolates were found to be Gram positive and able to produce endospores, whereas rest of the four isolates were Gram negative and not able to produce endospores (Table 6 and S2 Fig).

Table 6. Staining properties of common bacterial isolates from breeding habitats of Anopheles subpictus mosquito.

Name of the Isolates Gram’s Stain Endospore
Property Shape of Vegetative cells
HABW1 Positive Rods either single or in short chain Present
HABW3 Negative Rods single Absent
HABW4 Positive Rods in long chain Present
HABW6 Negative Rods single Absent
HABW10 Positive Rods single or in short chain Present
HABW12 Negative Rods single Absent
HABW14 Positive Rods single Present
HABW15 Negative Cocco-bacilli Absent

Bio-chemical characterization of bacterial isolates

The results of the biochemical tests of the eight resident bacterial strains are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Biochemical properties of common bacterial isolates from breeding habitats of Anopheles subpictus mosquito.

Name of the bio-chemical tests Name of the bacterial isolates
HABW1 HABW3 HABW4 HABW6 HABW10 HABW12 HABW14 HABW15
Catalase production + + + + + + + +
Indole production - - - - - + - -
Methyl Red (MR) + - + - - + - -
Voges Proskauer (VP) - - - + + - + -
Citrate utilization - + - + + - + +
Nitrate reduction + + - + + + + -
Oxidase production + + + - + - + -
Urease production - - + - - - - -
Starch hydrolysis + - - + + - + -
Lipid hydrolysis + + - - + - + -
Gelatine hydrolysis + + + - + - + -
Motility + + + + + + + -
Triple Sugar Iron Agar (TSI) K/A K/K K/A A/A, G A/A A/A, G A/A K/A
H2S production - - - - - - - -

+ = Positive, − = Negative, K = Alkaline, A = Acidic, G = Gas.

Ovipositional bioassay

Ovipositional response of gravid An. subpictus mosquitoes towards eight common breeding habitat bacterial isolates were evaluated in laboratory condition by dual choice egg count bioassay method. Out of the eight isolates, An. subpictus showed significant positive oviposition response towards test cup containing suspension of HABW1 (t(17.92, 4), p<0.0001), HABW4 (t(9.664,4) = 0.0006), HABW10 (t(23.26, 4), p<0.0001) & HABW14 (t(5.786, 4), p = 0.0044) (Table 8). Number of eggs laid in test cups containing other four bacterial isolates (HABW3, HABW6, HABW12 & HABW15) did not show any significant difference when compared with the number of eggs laid in their respective control cups (paired t-test, p>0.05) (Table 8). The oviposition activity index was 0.79, 0.62, 0.80 & 0.62 in case of HABW1, HABW4, HABW10 & HABW14 respectively. These values were 0.52, 0.51, 0.51 & 0.48 in case of HABW3, HABW6, HABW12 & HABW15 respectively. Further, when the mosquitoes were provided with a mixed suspension of all eight bacterial isolates, they also laid significant higher number of eggs in test cups than control cups (paired t-test, p<0.0001) and the oviposition activity index was 0.81 (Table 8). Details of data in relation to mosquito oviposition have been given in S3 File.

Table 8. Oviposition response of Anopheles subpictus to bacterial isolates in dual choice bioassay.

Bacterial isolates No. of eggs laid (Mean±S.E) Oviposition Activity Index (OAI) p value*
Control cups Test Cups
HABW1 62.6±9.45 245.8±18.58 0.79 <0.0001
HABW3 142.6±8.34 157.6±11.32 0.52 0.4614
HABW4 129±9.45 215±11.31 0.62 0.0006
HABW6 91.2±6.73 96.2±7.33 0.51 0.4527
HABW10 90±7.30 377±10.27 0.80 <0.0001
HABW12 142.6±11.33 149.8±12.63 0.51 0.7641
HABW14 106.4±7.97 176.8±6.63 0.62 0.0044
HABW15 131.6±12.91 123.4±8.36 0.48 0.6255
All Isolates 89.6±8.32 392.2±14.67 0.81 <0.0001

*The mean numbers of eggs laid in control cups and test cups are shown by paired t- test at p<0.05.

Molecular characterizations of bacterial isolates

Among the eight bacterial isolates which were found to be common in all habitat types of Anopheles subpictus throughout the year, four bacterial isolates (HABW1, HABW4, HABW10 & HABW14) were recorded as potent oviposition attractant of Anopheles subpictus mosquito. Therefore, these four bacterial isolates were further characterized by molecular methods to confirm their identification. The obtained 16S rDNA nucleotide sequences of these bacterial isolates were submitted to NCBI GenBank database and the following accession numbers have been allotted: MN153450 MN173350 MN153430 & MZ363639 to HABW1, HABW4, HABW10 & HABW14, respectively.

Phylogenetic analysis through neighbour-joining method indicated that Bacillus cereus HABW1 (MN153450) closely related to B. cereus (MH210863), whereas, ML method indicated that the bacterial isolate B. cereus HABW1 (MN153450) was closely similar to B. cereus (HQ684015) (Fig 8). Neighbour-joining tree of Bacillus megaterium HABW4 (MN173350) depicted that this bacteria is closely related with B. megaterium (KX495254) and according to ML tree this bacterial isolate is closely related with B. megaterium (KP017584) & B. megaterium (HQ634276) (Fig 9). Both neighbour-joining and ML tree of Bacillus subtilis HABW10 (MN166905) indicated that this bacterial strain is closely related to B. subtilis (EF633176) (Fig 10). Phylogenetic tree prepared by both neighbour-joining and ML method indicated that Bacillus tequilensis HABW14 (MZ363639) closely related with B. tequilensis (MK018119) (Fig 11).

Fig 8. Phylogenetic tree (A: Neighbour-joining method, B: Maximum likelihood method) constructed based on 16S rRNA gene sequences of Bacillus cereus HABW1 (MN153450) and other related sequences retrieved from NCBI.

Fig 8

Fig 9. Phylogenetic tree (A: Neighbour-joining method, B: Maximum likelihood method) constructed based on 16S rRNA gene sequences of Bacillus megaterium HABW4 (MN173350) and other related sequences retrieved from NCBI.

Fig 9

Fig 10. Phylogenetic tree (A: Neighbour-joining method, B: Maximum likelihood method) constructed based on 16S rRNA gene sequences of Bacillus subtilis HABW10 (MN166905) and other related sequences retrieved from NCBI.

Fig 10

Fig 11. Phylogenetic tree (A: Neighbour-joining method, B: Maximum likelihood method) constructed based on 16S rRNA gene sequences of Bacillus tequilensis HABW14 (MZ363639) and other related sequences retrieved from NCBI.

Fig 11

Scanning electron microscopic analysis of bacterial isolates

Scanning electron microscopic images revealed that all the organisms of the four bacterial isolates were rod shaped either single or in small or long chain (Fig 12) and they produced round or oval shaped endospores (Fig 13).

Fig 12. Scanning electron micrograph showing vegetative bodies of the bacterial isolates.

Fig 12

A: Bacillus cereus HABW1, B: Bacillus megaterium HABW4, C: Bacillus subtilis HABW10, D: Bacillus tequilensis HABW14.

Fig 13. Scanning electron micrograph showing endospores of the bacterial isolates.

Fig 13

A: Bacillus cereus HABW1, B: Bacillus megaterium HABW4, C: Bacillus subtilis HABW10, D: Bacillus tequilensis HABW14.

Carbohydrate fermentation ability of bacterial isolates

Fermentation of twenty different carbohydrate sources indicated that, all of the four bacterial isolates were able to ferment dextrose, fructose & trehalose but none of them could ferment dulcitol, adonitol, galactose, & rhamnose (Table 9).

Table 9. Carbohydrate fermentation test of oviposition attractant bacterial isolates.

Carbohydrate source Bacillus cereus Bacillus megaterium Bacillus subtilis Bacillus tequilensis
HABW1 HABW4 HABW10 HABW14
Dextrose (De) + + + +
Sucrose (Su) - + + +
Lactose (La) - + - -
Fructose (Fc) + + + +
Galactose (Ga) - - - -
Inositol (IS) - - + +
Mannitol (Mn) - + + +
Arabinose (Ar) - - + -
Cellobiose (Ce) - - + +
Trehalose (Te) + + + +
Dulcitol (Du) - - - -
Raffinose (Rf) - + + -
Melibiose (Mb) - + - -
Sorbitol (Sb) - - + +
Xylose (Xy) - + - -
Rhamnose (Rh) - - - -
Adonitol (Ad) - - - -
Mannose (Mo) - + + +
Salicin (Sa) - + - -
Inulin (In) - + + +

+ = positive, − = negative.

Antibiotic sensitivity of bacterial isolates

All the oviposition attractant bacterial isolates of Anopheles subpictus i.e. Bacillus cereus HABW1 (MN153450), Bacillus megaterium HABW4 (MN173350), Bacillus subtilis HABW10 (MN166905) & Bacillus tequilensis HABW14 (MZ363639) were sensitive to standard dose of bacitracin (10 μg/disc), azithromycin (30 μg/disc), ciprofloxacin (5 μg/disc), chloramphenicol (30 μg/disc), doxycycline (30 μg/disc), gentamicin (50 μg/disc), erythromycin (15 μg/disc), kanamycin (30μg/disc), neomycin (30 μg/disc), nalidixic acid (30 μg/disc), norfloxacin (10 μg/disc), ofloxacin (5 μg/disc), levofloxacin (5 μg/disc), rifampicin (5 μg/disc), tetracycline (30 μg/disc), streptomycin (10 μg/disc), vancomycin (30 μg/disc) (Table 10). Whereas all of the isolates except Bacillus cereus HABW1 (MN153450) was sensitive to amoxycillin (10 μg/disc). On the other hand, all the four bacterial isolates were found to be resistant towards standard dose of Penicillin (10 μg /disc) & ampicillin (10 μg/disc) (Table 10).

Table 10. Antibiotic sensitivity of oviposition attractant bacteria of Anopheles subpictus.

Antibiotics B. cereus B. megaterium B. subtilis B. tequilensis
HABW1 HABW4 HABW10 HABW14
Sensitivity ZDI (mm) Sensitivity ZDI (mm) Sensitivity ZDI (mm) Sensitivity ZDI (mm)
Chloramphenicol (C,30) S 18 S 22 S 28 S 30
Kanamycin (K,30) S 16 S 20 S 22 S 26
Levofloxacin (LE,5) S 30 S 22 S 38 S 37
Gentamicin (GEN,50) S 25 S 22 S 25 S 25
Neomycin (N,30) S 21 S 19 S 22 S 21
Bacitracin (B, 10) S 9 S 17 S 10 S 13
Ofloxacin (OF,5) S 28 S 18 S 33 S 33
Norfloxacin (NX,10) S 29 S 17 S 33 S 33
Tetracycline (TE,30) S 24 S 24 S 27 S 29
Ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5) S 32 S 22 S 38 S 36
Vancomycin (VA, 30) S 15 S 19 S 21 S 23
Rifampicin (RIF,5) S 11 S 17 S 29 S 19
Azithromycin (AZM,30) S 18 S 24 S 29 S 28
Erythromycin (E,15) S 15 S 21 S 23 S 26
Amoxicillin (AMX,10) R Nil S 13 S 30 S 18
Ampicillin (AMP,10) R Nil R Nil R Nil R Nil
Penicillin (P,10) R Nil R Nil R Nil R Nil
Streptomycin (S,10) S 23 S 18 S 18 S 20
Doxycycline (DO,30) S 24 S 26 S 33 S 31
Nalidixic acid(NA,30) S 21 S 15 S 29 S 25

S = Sensitive, R = Resistant, ZDI = Zone Diameter Inhibition value.

Physiological tolerance of bacterial isolates

All four bacterial isolates could tolerate up to 4% NaCl concentration of the growth medium. All of the four isolates showed a wide range of pH tolerance (5–11), although they exhibited maximum amount of growth between pH 7.5–9.5 of the media (Fig 14). Growth of the bacterial isolates in the culture medium at different temperatures revealed that they could tolerate temperature range 15°C-45°C, although their growth became increased at 30°C- 35°C (Fig 15).

Fig 14. Growth of bacterial isolates at different pH of the media.

Fig 14

Fig 15. Growth of bacterial isolates at different temperature of the media.

Fig 15

Discussion

Different species of mosquito prefer specific habitat water with diverse physicochemical characteristics for their egg laying and larval survival [11, 19, 47]. In natural environment some vector populations are found to be high in some aquatic habitats, while some others remain uncolonized, indicating that some places are more attractive for the gravid female mosquitoes than the others [48]. The selection of appropriate oviposition sites is very much crucial for the vector population dynamics and malarial epidemiology, as the immature vectors accomplish their life cycle and become adults within these preferred habitats [49, 50]. Physico-chemical properties, bacterial profile and organic matters of the breeding habitat water bodies are the key factors for the survivability of mosquito larvae [18, 5153]. Selected environmental conditions provide specific harbourage sites of particular type of bacterial species to the inhabiting mosquitoes [22]. So, it is important to know about different factors which are influencing the daily oviposition pattern of gravid female vector mosquitoes for their successful control in the field. Several authors have studied the effect of physico-chemical and microbiological factors of breeding habitats, that either influence or deterrent different species of mosquito oviposition [16, 54].

The present study depicted that An. subpictus larval prevalence was comparatively higher in pond water than submerged rice-fields and drain water throughout all seasons of the year. Rice-fields of study areas could not serve as potential breeding habitats for mosquito larvae because of the absence of water during winter season. Similar types of findings were reported by numerous researchers from different regions of the world [18, 55]. In some irrigated areas of Pakistan, prevalence of An. subpictus mosquitoes were reported to be higher than other some species of anopheline mosquitoes like An. stephensi, An. culicifacies & An. pulcherrimus in pond water rather than drain and irrigated fields [55]. Similarly, prevalence of An. subpictus mosquitoes were reported to be higher in pond water followed by rice-field water and the drain water in some malaria endemic areas of Bangladesh [18]. During the present study, although the higher larval density has been portrayed from the water logged ponds than submerged rice-fields, concordant similar physico-chemical parameters of the water bodies of ponds and rice-fields having some common oviposition attractant bacterial species indicated that there may be a possibility of the submerged rice-fields to be considered as major sources of An. subpictus mosquitoes in the absence of or much less number of ponds in an area. As the mosquitoes are poikilothermic animals, so their internal temperature fluctuates with the temperature of surrounding environment [56] and that is why environmental temperature have great impact in different life history stages of mosquitoes including egg hatching, larval development, emergence of adult mosquitoes and their subsequent vectorial capacity [57]. In the present study, prevalence of An. subpictus larvae were found to be higher in monsoon & post-monsoon season when the water temperature ranged between 27°C -29°C, whereas their occurrence became greatly reduced during winter season when the water temperature became reduced below 21°C. This observation indicated that lower temperature of the surrounding environment might reduce the survival and development of mosquito larval population and thereby decreasing their prevalence. Similar type of observation was reported from some malaria endemic areas of Sri Lanka, where different anopheline mosquitoes including An. subpictus were recorded to be highly prevalent during monsoon and post-monsoon season [58]. Our observation showed analogy with the reports that in some regions of Himachal Pradesh, where An. subpictus larval abundance was found to be very low during the winter season [59].

Majority of anopheline species were recorded to prefer almost neutral pH of habitat water [47, 60], with some exceptions also [18, 61, 62]. According to the findings of the present study larval prevalence of An. subpictus was maximum in water bodies with pH range between 6.5–7.5, beyond which their prevalence gradually declined. Similar types of pH preference of An. subpictus mosquitoes were previously documented from some malaria endemic areas of Ratchaburi Province Thailand, where the pH of habitat water was found to range between 7.23–7.27 [60]. Present study delineated that larval density of An. subpictus had significant negative association with pH of habitat water when pH increased beyond 7.5. Several workers informed the negative correlation between anopheline larval abundance with pH of breeding habitat water [18, 60, 61], although some contrasting results were also reported [63]. Alike pH, in the study areas larval density of An. subpictus also showed negative correlation with the alkalinity of habitat water. Similar type of association was reported in An. stephensi mosquitoes from some rural and urban areas of West Bengal [64] although positive correlation was also documented in some areas of south-eastern Chennai [21].

An. subpictus mosquitoes in the study areas were found to prefer clear water with high dissolved oxygen (>5 mg/L) content for egg laying and showed significant positive correlation with amount of dissolved oxygen of habitat water. Several earlier workers have reported that most of the anopheline mosquito species favoured non-polluted water-bodies holding high dissolved oxygen content for egg laying and larval survival [12, 60, 64, 65], although contrasting results were documented in some regions of Pakistan as an uncommon event [13]. The preference for clear water is due to lack of siphon tube in anopheline larvae [66]. In the present study, An. subpictus larvae were found to be more prevalent in low turbid clear water than highly turbid water bodies. Higher turbidity caused by the accumulation of both organic and inorganic compounds prevents the light penetration in the water bodies which might causes lesser number of photosynthetic organisms in the water bodies [63]. Lesser number of photosynthetic organisms lead to lower amount of dissolved oxygen content of water that might restrict the prevalence of An. subpictus larvae. Several workers reported that turbidity of water had a negative influence on the larval prevalence of different mosquito species like Armigeres subalbatus, Culex quinquifasciatus, Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Toxorhynchites sp, Lutzia spp. etc in some semi-urban and rural areas of Asam, India [67] though positive correlation was documented in case of An. arabiensis in some regions of Tubu village of Botswana [63].

The present study found that increase of water conductivity negatively affect the prevalence of An. subpictus larvae. Similar observation was reported in different mosquito species like Armigeres subalbatus, Aedes albopictus, Aedes aegypti, Culex quinquifasciatus, Lutzia spp., Toxorhynchites sp. etc from some rural and semi-urban areas of Asom, India [67]. An. arabiensis larvae in some regions of Tubu village, Botswana was also reported to have significant negative correlation with conductivity of habitat water [63]. In contrast, opposite result has also been reported by some workers such as, studies of Dida and coworkers reported positive association of both culicine and anopheline larvae with conductivity of breeding habitat water [12]. Conductivity of habitat water was also reported to have positive association with some other anopheline species like An. stephensi [21], An. peryassui, An. albitarsis and An. nuneztovari [68].

Present study observed that hardness of habitat water negatively affects the occurrence of An. subpictus larvae in the study areas. Similar findings were recorded in case of Cx. quinquefasciatus mosquitoes, where different degrees of water hardness found to have negative effect on the development of mosquitoes [69]. Hardness of water occurs due to the presence of dissolved minerals like magnesium, calcium etc. Sometimes high hardness values of water because of the presence of high amount of calcium ions may lead to the deposition of excess calcium within the cuticle of aquatic insects which may restrict expansion of cuticle, growth of insect and thus exert a toxic impact on them [69].

Amount of chloride ions present in water give indication of water salinity. In the present study chloride content of different water bodies were recorded to range between 34.38 mg/L- 49.84 mg/L and no significant differences in the chloride content was observed between different habitats studied. Correlation study also indicated that prevalence of Anopheles subpictus larvae in different habitat water did not significantly influenced by the amount of chloride ion of water. Like the findings of the present study, amount of chloride ion of habitat water in some areas of south-east Iran was also reported to have no significant influence in the distribution of different species of anopheline larvae [51].

Present study found that concentration of nitrate (NO3-) and phosphate (PO4-) ions of habitat water had significant negative impact on the prevalence of An. subpictus larvae in the study areas. Nitrogen is one of the limiting factors for mosquito larval growth but excess concentration of nitrate in water might lead to eutrophication and exhaustion of dissolved oxygen content of water [70]. Similarly, high concentration of phosphate in water together with low dissolved oxygen content gives an indication of water pollution, that reported to have substantial negative effect on the longevity and body size of adult Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes [71].

So, from the present study it is clear that, physico-chemical parameters of water are highly correlated with one another, such as increase in the dissolve ions and mineral contents of water increased the pH and hardness of water. Hard water with high pH might have negative impact on An. subpictus larvae. So, no single factor could play a major role in determining an ideal habitat, rather a group of factors together are responsible for generating a suitable habitat for the breeding and survival of An. subpictus mosquitoes. Through GLM analysis, it was found that pH, alkalinity and dissolved oxygen content of water bodies are the major contributors for the variation of larval density of An. subpictus in different habitat types.

In addition to physico-chemical parameters of water bodies, several previous studies have indicated that microbial features of habitat water had also a great impact in determining larval density of different species of mosquitoes [28, 72]. During the present study, microbial analysis of different bacterial groups of breeding habitat water of An. subpictus mosquitoes indicated higher population of Bacillus group of bacteria with starch hydrolyzing & nitrate reducing capacity in the pond water, where the prevalence of An. subpictus larvae were recorded to be higher than rice-fields and drain water throughout the study period. Bacillus spp. could also enumerate in comparatively more clean, soft and stagnant breeding habitat waterbodies with high dissolve oxygen content, where An. subpictus mosquitoes also showed higher prevalence exhibiting the co-existence of anopheline larvae and spore forming Bacillus bacterial strains. Some earlier studies had reported Bacillus group of bacteria have the ability to modulate different physico-chemical parameters of water and thus making it favourable for many aquatic organisms. For instances, studies by some workers showed that Bacillus group of bacteria including Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformes together played some important role which improves the dissolved oxygen content of water [73, 74]. In addition to that Bacillus group of bacteria were also found to maintain the alkalinity and pH of water bodies and avert it from becoming too low or too high [75]. Higher value of total dissolved solids (TDS) of water owing to pollution might have adverse effect on aquatic organisms. Several Bacillus groups of bacteria including Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus cereus had been reported to maintain TDS values of water within tolerable range that improves quality of water [76, 77]. Higher amount of nitrate and phosphate content of water are the reasons for algal bloom formation which ultimately reduced the quality of water. Bacillus group of bacteria including Bacillus cereus, Bacillus mojavensis, Bacillus subtilis had been reported to reduce nitrate [24, 78] and phosphate [79] content of water and thus helped in improving the water quality. Several Bacillus spp. like B. subtilis, B. cereus, B. mojavensis were reported to have the ability to reduce total hardness values of water [79, 80]. Bacillus group of bacteria also have the capacity to decompose organic materials present in pond water to smaller units and thus serve to improve the water quality [8183]. Higher starch hydrolyzing and nitrate reducing bacterial populations in habitat water help to degrade starch content of water bodies and reduce nitrate level of water. Earlier studies reported Bacillus cereus XHJ-2-6 present in shrimp pond water had the ability to reduce total suspended solids of water by its proteolytic and amylolytic activity which improves the quality of water [84]. All these reports corroborated the outcomes of the present study in a way that, higher population of Bacillus, starch hydrolyzing & nitrate reducing bacteria in water bodies might have a role to improve the water quality parameters. The microbial metabolic and physiological activities in larval habitat water modified several water physico-chemical parameters and created a suitable habitat condition for An. subpictus larvae. Thereby both the Bacillus group of bacteria and An. subpictus showed a co-existence in these water bodies.

The present microbiological study of anopheline breeding habitats recorded eight bacterial strains were common in all habitat types of An. subpictus mosquito throughout the year. Oviposition study in laboratory condition revealed that, among these eight isolates only four acted as potent attractant of mosquito oviposition, whereas other four isolates did not have any significant influence on mosquito oviposition. Morphological, bio-chemical and molecular analyses confirmed that these four bacterial strains were different species of Bacillus viz., B. cereus HABW1, B. megaterium HABW4, B. subtilis HABW10 & B. tequilensis HABW14. Like the findings of the present study, Mondal and his co-workers also reported four common bacterial isolates identified as Bacillus sp. from all types of mosquito larval habitats in Dehradun City of Uttarakhand [53]. Oviposition study in laboratory condition revealed that although these four bacterial species significantly influenced the mosquito oviposition but the attractancy rate varied. Oviposition activity index (OAI) was recorded as 0.79, 0.62, 0.80 & 0.62 towards B. cereus HABW1, B. megaterium HABW4, B. subtilis HABW10 & B. tequilensis HABW14 respectively, which indicated that B. subtilis HABW10 and B. cereus HABW1 were more potent attractant of gravid An. subpictus mosquitoes than B. megaterium HABW4 and B. tequilensis HABW14. Earlier studies by several workers also indicated that not all bacteria inhabiting in the breeding habitat of mosquito have positive influence on mosquito oviposition, further some of them also repel the gravid mosquito oviposition, such as Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes in Kenya were reported to lay lower amount of eggs in water containing a mixture of different bacterial isolates of natural habitat including Bacillus, Enterobacter, Aeromonas, Stenotrophomonas, Acinetobacter, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas than bacteria free control water. In addition they also recorded that bacterial isolate Stenotrophomonas maltophilia repel oviposition of gravid Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes [85]. Similarly, Lindh and coworkers reported among seventeen bacterial isolates (eight from the mid-gut of Anopheles gambiae and nine from the breeding habitat water), gravid Anopheles gambiae mosquito had positive ovipositional response to six bacterial isolates. Among these six isolates, five were from the breeding habitat (Bacillus sp., Comamonas sp., Proteus sp., Exiguobacterium sp. and Micrococcus sp.) and one (Vibrio metschnikovii) from the mid-gut of Anopheles arabiensis mosquito [86].

Earlier workers elicited the variations in microbial composition among mosquito larvae prevailing in different habitats, but harmony and propinquity of the same sharing the same habitat [87]. During the present study, analyses of different bacterial groups indicated the abundance of spore forming Bacillus population in the pond water with the higher prevalence of An. subpictus larvae than those occurring in rice-fields and drain water throughout the entire study period. Present study identified four bacterial strains, namely Bacillus cereus HABW1 (MN153450), B. megaterium HABW4 (MN173350), B. subtilis HABW10 (MN166905) and B. tequilensis HABW14 (MZ363639) and all of them except B. megaterium HABW4 (MN173350) were positive for starch hydrolysis and nitrate reduction test. So, it may be inferred that spore forming Bacillus group having starch hydrolyzing, nitrate reducing properties, were present in higher frequency in pond water than rice-field and drain water, and acted as potent oviposition attractant strains for gravid female An. subpictus.

Oviposition attractancy of gravid female mosquitoes is due to some volatile chemicals that are released through bacterial metabolic activities [86, 88]. A species specific variation in respect to these volatile chemicals was also noticed [89]. Earlier observation documented the production of volatile chemicals due to bacterial fermentation of different organic matters of habitat water. Studies by Santana and associated workers reported that, Aedes aegypti mosquitoes were attracted to microbial volatile released due to fermentation of Panicum maximum grass by the microbial activities [90]. Present study recorded that the identified oviposition attractant bacterial isolates could ferment a good number of carbohydrate sources, which indicate their high fermentation capabilities. In addition to that, all of them except Bacillus megaterium HABW4 was positive for protein hydrolysis & starch hydrolysis test which indicated the ability of these bacterial species to degrade protein & starch content of animal or plant origin, and thus could contribute in the decomposition of organic materials present in the water bodies. Physiological tolerance test revealed that all of these four-oviposition attractant bacterial strains could tolerate a wide range of pH and temperature of the environment, which helped them to survive in adverse environmental condition and all of them could have a tolerance up to 4% NaCl concentration of the growth media, which indicated that they could survive in slightly saline environment also. Present observation depicted that higher larval prevalence of An. subpictus at a water temperature ranging between 27°C-29°C and pH of the habitat water ranging between 6.5–7.5. In these temperature and pH range, breeding habitat bacteria also showed higher amount of growth. Although antibiotic sensitivity tests revealed the sensitivity of all the isolates to most of the standard antibiotics, still application of antibiotics to natural breeding habitats might have several harmful effects on environment [91, 92]. Therefore more eco-friendly approach needs to be explored for effective control of these oviposition attractant bacterial strains from mosquito breeding habitats as a great option of malaria management programme.

Conclusion

Present investigation potrays that An. subpictus mosquitoes prefer to breed in non-polluted clear water bodies having higher amount of dissolved oxygen content and their prevalence becomes greatly augmented during monsoon and post-monsoon season than summer and winter. So, besides polluted water we should turn from our contemplation of the non-polluted water bodies. Populations of different microbial groups might help to modulate the physico-chemical parameters of water and thus making it more suitable for An. subpictus mosquitoes. During the present study four bacterial strains Bacillus cereus HABW1, Bacillus megaterium HABW4, Bacillus subtilis HABW10 and Bacillus tequilensis HABW14 were identified as potent ovipositional attractants of the gravid An. subpictus mosquitoes prevalent in rural areas of Hooghly District, West Bengal, India. Further elucidation about the microbial activities contributing to the favourable environment for oviposition and vector survival might improve the current strategies of vector management programme. If these oviposition attractant bacterial isolates could be ruined from the mosquito breeding sites through ecofriendly bactericidal or bacteriostatic plant extracts, the rate of egg laying by mosquito vectors will be minimized, in such a way, which would obviously contribute an alternative strategy of vector management in malaria prone areas.

Supporting information

S1 File. Data of larval density and physico-chemical parameters of different types of aquatic bodies in four different seasons.

(XLSX)

S2 File. Data of number of colonies counted over respective agar media and cfu of different bacterial populations in different types of aquatic bodies in four different seasons.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Data related to mosquito oviposition.

(XLSX)

S1 Fig. Growth of bacterial colonies of mosquito breeding habitats on different agar media.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Gram staining of common bacterial isolates from breeding habitats of An. subpictus mosquito.

(TIF)

S1 Table. A & B. Friedman test for significant effect of season and habitat types on larval density of Anopheles subpictus.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. One-Way ANOVA for physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types (ponds, drains & rice-fields) during summer season.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. One-Way ANOVA for physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types (ponds, drains & rice-fields) during monsoon season.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. One-Way ANOVA for physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types (ponds, drains & rice-fields) during post-monsoon season.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Mann-Whitney test for physico-chemical parameters between ponds and drains during winter season.

(DOCX)

S6 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during summer season.

(DOCX)

S7 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during monsoon season.

(DOCX)

S8 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during post-monsoon season.

(DOCX)

S9 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during winter season.

(DOCX)

S10 Table. A, B & C. Univariate Tests of Significance for larval density (L.D).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Burdwan University authority for providing proper laboratory facilities to carry out the work. The authors are thankful to Dr. Ayan Mondal, Assistant professor, Government General Degree College, Mohanpur for his constructive suggestions in statistical analyses. Authors are also very much thankful to DST PURSE, DST FIST for providing instrumental facilities.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Zhou S, Li Z. Malaria Risk and Control. Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in BRI Countries. Springer, Singapore. 2021. pp. 111–117. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Evangelista E, Medeiros-Sousa AR, Ceretti-Junior W, Oliveira-Christe R, Wilk-da-Silva R, de Castro Duarte AMR, et al. Relationship between vertical stratification and feeding habits of mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) assemblages collected in conservation units in the green belt of the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Acta Trop. 2021; 221: 106009. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2021.106009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chatterjee S, Chandra G. Role of Anopheles subpictus as a primary vector of malaria in an area in India. Jpn J Trop Med Hyg. 2000; 28(3): 177–181. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Singh RK, Kumar G, Mittal PK, Dhiman RC. Bionomics and vector potential of Anopheles subpictus as a malaria vector in India: An overview. Int J Mosq Res. 2014; 1(1): 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kumar A, Hosmani R, Jadhav S, de Sousa T, Mohanty A, Naik M, et al. Anopheles subpictus carry human malaria parasites in an urban area of Western India and may facilitate perennial malaria transmission. Malar J. 2016; 15: 124. doi: 10.1186/s12936-016-1177-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rani A, Nagpal BN, Singh H, Mehta SS, Srivastava A, Saxena R. Potential role of Anopheles subpictus as a malaria vector in Ghaziabad District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 2021; 41(2): 1107–17. 10.1007/s42690-020-00296-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nagpal B, Sharma VP. Indian Anophelines. 1995.
  • 8.Chandra G, Bhattacharjee I, Chatterjee S. A review on Anopheles subpictus Grassi—a biological vector. Acta Trop. 2010; 115: 142–54. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2010.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Azmi SA, Das S, Chatterjee S. Seasonal prevalence and blood meal analysis of filarial vector Culex quinquefasciatus in coastal areas of Digha, West Bengal, India. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2015; 52(3): 252–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Seal M, Chatterjee S. Prevalence of three mosquito vectors: Anopheles, Culex and Aedes in some areas of Hooghly West Bengal. India Biosci Biotech Res Comm. 2020; 13(1): 225–232. doi: 10.21786/bbrc/13.1/39 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chatterjee S, Chakraborty A, Sinha SK. Spatial distribution & physicochemical characterization of the breeding habitats of Aedes aegypti in & around Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Indian J Med Res. 2015; 142(Suppl 1): S79. doi: 10.4103/0971-5916.176631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dida GO, Anyona DN, Abuom PO, Akoko D, Adoka SO, Matano AS, et al. Spatial distribution and habitat characterization of mosquito species during the dry season along the Mara River and its tributaries, in Kenya and Tanzania. Infect Dis Poverty. 2018; 7:2. doi: 10.1186/s40249-017-0385-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mukhtar M, Ensink J, Van der Hoek W, Amerasinghe FP, Konradsen F. Importance of waste stabilization ponds and wastewater irrigation in the generation of vector mosquitoes in Pakistan. J Med Entomol. 2006; 43(5): 996–1003. http://jme.oxfordjournals.org [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chattopadhyay A, Dey C, Banerjee PK. Malaria in some areas of Hooghly district of West Bengal (2009–2010): A survey and study of anopheline population. Advances in Parasitology: A Novel Approach Towards a Disease Free World. Proceedings of the 22nd National Congress on Parasitology, University of Kalyani, West Bengal, India. 2010; pp.1-4.
  • 15.Amitabha D, De KK, Pasi AR, Jalaluddeen M, Bibhash R. Evaluation of Malaria Surveillance System in Hooghly district of West Bengal- India. IP Int J Med Microbiol Trop Dis. 2016; 2(1): 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chakraborty A, Chatterjee S. Studies on the fitness components and comparative oviposition preferences of Aedes albopictus in various larval microhabitats of Burdwan, West Bengal. Int J Mosq Res. 2015; 2(3): 56–60. https://www.dipterajournal.com/archives/2015/2/3/C/2-2-55 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Owusu HF, Chitnis N, Muller P. Insecticide susceptibility of Anopheles mosquitoes changes in response to variations in the larval environment. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 3667. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03918-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alam MS, Al-Amin HM, Elahi R, Chakma S, Kafi MAH, Khan WA, et al. Abundance and Dynamics of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae) Larvae in a Malaria Endemic Area of Bangladesh. J Med Entomol. 2017; 55(2): 382–391. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjx196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hery L, Guidez A, Durand AA, Delannay C, Normandeau-Guimond J, Reynaud Y, et al. Natural variation in physicochemical profiles and bacterial communities associated with Aedes aegypti breeding sites and larvae on Guadeloupe and French Guiana. Microb Ecol. 2021; 81(1): 93–109. 10.1007/s00248-020-01544-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Emosairue EO, Ogharanduku TI, Nmor JC. Oviposition site selection and habitat characterization of Anopheles Mosquito in Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria. Int J Trop Dis Health. 2015; 7(3): 109–118. doi: 10.9734/IJTDH/2015/11813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thomas S, Ravishankaran S, Justin NJA, Asokan A, Kalsingh TMJ, Mathai MT, et al. Does fluoride influence oviposition of Anopheles stephensi in stored water habitats in an urban setting? Malar J. 2016; 15: 549. doi: 10.1186/s12936-016-1594-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Buck M, Nilsson LK, Brunius C, Dabire RK, Hopkins R, Terenius O. Bacterial associations reveal spatial population dynamics in Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 22806. 10.1038/srep22806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nilsson LK, Sharma A, Bhatnagar RK, Bertilsson S, Terenius O. Presence of Aedes and Anopheles mosquito larvae is correlated to bacteria found in domestic water-storage containers. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018; 94(6): fiy058. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiy058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Thurlow CM, Williams MA, Carrias A, Ran C, Newman M, Tweedie J, et al. Bacillus velezensis AP193 exerts probiotic effects in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and reduces aquaculture pond eutrophication. Aquaculture. 2019; 503: 347–356. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.11.051 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hlordzi V, Kuebutornye FK, Afriyie G, Abarike ED, Lu Y, Chi S, et al. The use of Bacillus species in maintenance of water quality in aquaculture: A review. Aquac. Rep. 2020; 18: 100503. 10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Merritt RW, Dadd RH, Walker ED. Feeding behavior, natural food, and nutritional relationships of larval mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol. 1992; 37(1): 349–374. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.002025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rejmankova E, Higashi R Grieco J, Achee N, Roberts D. Volatile substances from larval habitats mediate species-specific oviposition in Anopheles mosquitoes. J Med Entomol. 2005; 42(2): 95–103. 10.1093/jmedent/42.2.95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lindh JM, Okal MN, Herrera-Varela M, Borg-Karlson AK, Torto B, Lindsay SW, et al. Discovery of an oviposition attractant for gravid malaria vectors of the Anopheles gambiae species complex. Malar J. 2015; 14(1): 119. 10.1186/s12936-015-0636-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Benzon GL, Apperson CS. Reexamination of chemically mediated oviposition behavior in Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 1988; 25(3): 158–164. 10.1093/jmedent/25.3.158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Beehler JW, Millar JG, Mulla MS. Protein hydrolysates and associated bacterial contaminants as oviposition attractants for the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus. Med Vet Entomol. 1994; 8(4): 381–385. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1994.tb00103.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Navarro DMAF, De Oliveira PES Potting RPJ Brito AC, Fital SJF SantAna AG. The potential attractant or repellent effects of different water types on oviposition in Aedes aegypti L (Dipt., Culicidae). J Appl Entomol. 2003; 27(1): 46–50. 10.1046/j.1439-0418.2003.00690.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st ed. Washington DC. 2005.
  • 33.Holt JG. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore 1984.
  • 34.Sneath PHA. Endospore-forming Gram-positive rods and cocci. William and Wilkins, Baltimore, Bergey’s Manual Syst. Bacteriol. 1986. pp. 141–219.
  • 35.Lacey LA. Manual of techniques in insect pathology. New York: Academic Press. 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Smibert R, Krieg NR. Phenotypic testing In Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology. American Society for Microbiology. 1995. pp. 607–654.
  • 37.Service MW. Mosquito ecology: field sampling methods. Chapman and Hall, London. 1993.
  • 38.Rahuman AA, Bagavan A, Kamaraj C, Vadivelu M, Zahir AA, Elango G, et al. Evaluation of indigenous plant extracts against larvae of Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol Res. 2009; 104(3): 637–643. 10.1007/s00436-008-1240-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kramer WL, Mulla MS. Oviposition attractants and repellents of mosquitoes: oviposition responses of Culex mosquitoes to organic infusions. Environ Entomon. 1979; 8(6): 1111–1117. 10.1093/ee/8.6.1111 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jansen K. Current protocols in molecular biology. Greene Publ. Assoc. Inc. and John Wiley Sons Inc, New York: 1994. pp. 20. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. ClustalW: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994; 22: 4673–4680. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S. MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007; 24: 1596–1599. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Brown A. Benson’s Microbiological applications: laboratory manual in general microbiology. MCMGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math 2004.
  • 44.Pelczar MJ, Bard RC, Burnett GW, Conn HJ, Demoss RD, Euans EE, et al. Manual of Microbiological Methods. Society of American Bacteriology. 1957.
  • 45.Collee JG, Miles RS. Test for the identification of bacteria. Practical Medical Microbiology, Churchill Living Stone (Pub), New York. 1989. pp.141–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. New Delhi, India: Pearson Education Singapore Pte. Ltd (Indian Branch).1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Abai MR, Saghafipour A, Ladonni H, Jesri N, Omidi S, Azari-Hamidian S. Physicochemical characteristics of larval habitat waters of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Qom Province, central Iran. J Arthropod Borne Dis. 2016; 10(1): 65–77. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ndenga BA, Simbauni JA, Mbugi JP, Githeko AK, Fillinger U. Productivity of Malaria Vectors from Different Habitat Types in the Western Kenya Highlands. PLoS one. 2011; 6(4): e19473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Overgaard HJ, Tsuda Y, Suwonkerd W, Takagi M. Characteristics of Anopheles minimus (Diptera: Culicidae) larval habitats in northern Thailand. Environ Entomol. 2001; 10(1): 134–141. 10.1603/0046-225X-31.1.134 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wondwosen B, Birgersson G, Seyoum E, Tekie H, Torto B, Fillinger U, et al. Rice volatiles lure gravid malaria mosquitoes, Anopheles arabiensis. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 37930. doi: 10.1038/srep37930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Soleimani-Ahmadi M, Vatandoost H, Zare M. Characterization of larval habitats for anopheline mosquitoes in a malarious area under elimination program in the southeast of Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2014; 4: S73–S80. 10.12980/APJTB.4.2014C899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kweka EJ, Owino EA, Mwangonde BJ, Mahande AM, Nyindo M, Mosha F. The role of cow urine in the oviposition site preference of culicine and Anopheles mosquitoes. Parasit Vectors. 2011; 4(1): 184. http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/4/1/184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Keno H, Ejeta D, Negisho T, Wakjira M, Muleta G, Natea G, et al. Characterization of Anopheles mosquito larval habitats and species composition in Bambasi District, Northwestern Ethiopia. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 2022; 42(3): 2325–36. 10.1007/s42690-022-00755-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mondal R, Devi NP, Jauhari RK. Characterization of bacterial isolates found in breeding habitats of mosquitoes in Dehradun City, Uttarakhand. J Adv Microbiol. 2015; 2(1): 1–7. http://www.shorturl.at/pruJW [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Herrel N, Amerasinghe FP, Ensink J, Mukhtar M, Van Der Hoek W, Konradsen F. Breeding of Anopheles mosquitoes in irrigated areas of South Punjab, Pakistan. Med Vet Entomol. 2001; 15(3): 236–248. 10.1046/j.0269-283x.2001.00312.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Reinhold JM, Lazzari CR, Lahondere C. Effects of the environmental temperature on Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes: a review. Insects. 2018; 9(4): 158. doi: 10.3390/insects9040158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Suryadi I, Ishak H. Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Environmental Factors Related to Larval Density An. barbirostris and An. subpictus in Bulukumba: An Approach to Industry 4.0. E3S Web Conf. 2019; 125: 05002. 10.1051/e3sconf/2019125002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gunathilaka N, Hapugoda M, Wickremasinghe R, Abeyewickreme W. A comprehensive analysis on abundance, distribution, and bionomics of potential malaria vectors in Mannar district of Sri Lanka. Malar Res Treat. 2019; 1650180. 10.1155/2019/1650180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kaur J. (2018). Culicidae diversity and its correlation with some physicochemical parameters in a rain fed petite water body at Tipra village, Baddi (Himachal Pradesh). Int J Basic Appl Sci. 8(11): 623–632. https://www.jvbd.org/text.asp?2020/57/4/301/313972 [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chaiphongpachara T, Yusuk P, Laojun S, Kunphichayadecha C. Environmental factors associated with mosquito vector larvae in a malaria-endemic area in ratchaburi province, Thailand. Sci World J. 2018; 4519094. 10.1155/2018/4519094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Kengluecha A, Singhasivanon P, Tiensuwan M, Jones JW, Sithiprasasna R. Water quality and breeding habitats of anopheline mosquito in northwestern Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2005; 36(1): 46–53. https://www.thaiscience.info/journals/Article/TMPH/10601124.pdf [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Omrani SM, Azari-Hamidian S. Vertical Distribution, Biodiversity, and Some Selective Aspects of the Physicochemical Characteristics of the Larval Habitats of Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province, Iran. Int J Epidemiol Res. 2020; 7(2): 74–91. doi: 10.34172/ijer.2020.15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chirebvu E, Chimbari MJ. Characteristics of Anopheles arabiensis larval habitats in Tubu village, Botswana. J Vector Ecol. 2015; 40(1): 129–138. 10.1111/jvec.12141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ghosh SK, Podder D, Panja AK, Mukherjee S. In target areas where human mosquito-borne diseases are diagnosed, the inclusion of the pre-adult mosquito aquatic niches parameters will improve the integrated mosquito control program. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020; 14(8): e0008605. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mohamed N, Dom NC. Habitat characterization of Anopheles sp. mosquito larvae in Malaria risk areas. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2019; 5(2): 9–16. http://apeohjournal.org/index.php/v/article/view/87 [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Tyagi BK, Munirathinam A, Venkatesh A. A catalogue of Indian mosquitoes. Int J Mosq Res. 2015; 2(2): 50–97. https://www.dipterajournal.com/pdf/2015/vol2issue2/PartB/1-4-3-308.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Gopalakrishnan R, Das M, Baruah I, Veer V, Dutta P. Physicochemical characteristics of habitats in relation to the density of container-breeding mosquitoes in Asom, India. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2013; 50(3): 215–219. https://www.shorturl.at/tDJ56 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Arcos AN, Ferreira FADS, Cunha HBD, Tadei WP. Characterization of artificial larval habitats of Anopheles darlingi (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Brazilian Central Amazon. Rev Bras Entomol. 2018; 62: 267–274. doi: 10.1016/j.rbe.2018.07.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ukubuiwe AC, Olayemi IK, Omalu ICJ, Arimoro FO, Ukubuiwe CC. Morphometric diagnosis of the effects of water hardness on development of immature life stages and adult vectorial fitness of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquito. Zoomorphology. 2018; 137: 511–518. doi: 10.1007/s00435-018-0415-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lund A, McMillan J, Kelly R, Jabbarzadeh S, Mead DG, Burkot TR, et al. Long term impacts of combined sewer overflow remediation on water quality and population dynamics of Culex quinquefasciatus, the main urban West Nile virus vector in Atlanta, GA. Environ Res. 2014; 129: 20–26. 10.1016/j.envres.2013.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mamai W, Hood-Nowotny R, Maiga H, Ali AB, Bimbile-Somda NS, Soma DD, et al. Reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration for recovery and reuse of larval rearing water in Anopheles arabiensis mass production: Effect of water quality on larval development and fitness of emerging adults. Acta Trop. 2017; 170: 126–133. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.02.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Sumba LA, Guda TO, Deng AL, Hassanali A, Beier JC, Knols BG. Mediation of oviposition site selection in the African malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) by semiochemicals of microbial origin. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 2004; 24(3): 260–265. 10.1079/IJT200433 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Zink IC, Benetti DD, Douillet PA, Margulies D, Scholey VP. Improvement of water chemistry with Bacillus probiotics inclusion during simulated transport of yellowfin tuna yolk sac larvae. N Am J Aquac. 2011; 73(1): 42–48. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15222055.2011.544622 [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Hainfellner P, Cardozo MV, Borzi MM, Almeida CC, Jose L, Pizauro L, et al. Commercial probiotic increases survival rate and water quality in aquariums with high density of nile tilapia larvae (Oreochromis niloticus). Int J Probiotics Prebiotics. 2018; 13(4): 139–142. https://www.shorturl.at/dfFKM [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Hura MUD, Zafar T, Borana K, Prasad JR, Iqbal J. Effect of commercial probiotic Bacillus megaterium on water quality in composite culture of major carps. Int J Agric Sci. 2018; 8(1): 268–273. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Barman P, Bandyopadhyay P, Kati A, Paul T, Mandal AK, Mondal KC, et al. Characterization and strain improvement of aerobic denitrifying EPS producing bacterium Bacillus cereus PB88 for shrimp water quality management. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2018; 9(8): 1319–1330. 10.1007/s12649-017-9912-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Elsabagh M, Mohamed R, Moustafa EM, Hamza A, Farrag F, Decamp O, et al. Assessing the impact of Bacillus strains mixture probiotic on water quality, growth performance, blood profile and intestinal morphology of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Aquac Nutr. 2018; 24(6): 1613–1622. 10.1111/anu.12797 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Lalloo R, Ramchuran S, Ramduth D, Gorgens J, Gardiner N. Isolation and selection of Bacillus spp. as potential biological agents for enhancement of water quality in culture of ornamental fish. J Appl Microbiol. 2007; 103(5): 1471–1479. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03360.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Reddy KV, Reddy AVK, Babu BS, Lakshmi TV. Applications of Bacillus sp. in aquaculture waste water treatment. Int J S Res Sci. Tech. 2018; 4: 1806–1812. https://www.shorturl.at/kzBEM [Google Scholar]
  • 80.George EGJ, Jayaraj GP, Balaraman D, Soundarapandy A. Augmenting efficacy of the commercial probiotic consortium, Ecotrax® on soil, water quality, survival, growth and feed transformation on the semi-intensive pond culture system of the white leg shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931). Adv Appl Sci Res. 2016; 7: 32–42. www.pelagiaresearchlibrary.com [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Dalmin G, Kathiresan K, Purushothaman A. Effect of probiotics on bacterial population and health status of shrimp in culture pond ecosystem. Indian J Exp Biol. 2001; 39(9): 939–942. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Das S, Mondal K, Haque S. A review on application of probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic for sustainable development of aquaculture. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2017; 5(22): 402–429. https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2017/vol5issue2/PartF/5-1-82-948.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Loh JY. The role of probiotics and their mechanisms of action: an aquaculture perspective. J World Aquac Soc. 2017; 18(1): 19–23. https://www.shorturl.at/ovzGL [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Jamilah IT, Meryandini A, Rusmana I, Suwanto A, Mubarik NR. Activity of proteolytic and amylolytic enzymes from Bacillus spp. isolated from shrimp ponds. Microbiol Indones. 2009; 3(2): 67–71. 10.5454/mi.3.2.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Huang J, Miller JR, Chen SC, Vulule JM, Walker ED. Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) oviposition in response to agarose media and cultured bacterial volatiles. J Med Entomol. 2006; 43(3): 498–504. 10.1093/jmedent/43.3.498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Lindh JM, Kannaste A, Knols BGJ, Faye I, Borg-Karlson AK. Oviposition responses of Anopheles gambiaess (Diptera: Culicidae) and identification of volatiles from bacteria-containing solutions. J Med Entomol. 2008; 45(6): 1039–1049. 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[1039:OROAGS]2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Scolari F, Casiraghi M, Bonizzoni M. Aedes spp. and their microbiota: a review. Front Microbiol. 2019; 10:2036. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Suh E, Choe DH, Saveer AM, Zwiebel LJ. Suboptimal larval habitats modulate oviposition of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles coluzzii. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2): e0149800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Verhulst NO, Andriessen R, Groenhagen U, Bukovinszkine Kiss G, Schulz S, Takken W, et al. Differential attraction of malaria mosquitoes to volatile blends produced by human skin bacteria. PLoS One. 2010; 5(12): e15829. 10.1371/journal.pone.0015829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Santana AL, Roque RA, Eiras AE. Characteristics of grass infusions as oviposition attractants to Aedes (Stegomyia) (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2006; 43(2): 214–220. 10.1093/jmedent/43.2.214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Grenni P, Ancona V, Caracciolo AB. Ecological effects of antibiotics on natural ecosystems: A review. Microchem J. 2018; 136: 25–39. 10.1016/j.microc.2017.02.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Bilal M, Mehmood S, Rasheed T, Iqbal HM. Antibiotics traces in the aquatic environment: persistence and adverse environmental impact. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health. 2020; 13: 68–74. 10.1016/j.coesh.2019.11.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Cinzia Calvio

27 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-19958Combined effect of physico-chemical and microbial quality of breeding habitat water on oviposition of Anopheles subpictus  in Hooghly, West Bengal, India.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chatterjee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers highlighted common faults, such as the need to improve statistical analyses and to perform a general reorganization of the data presented.

Additional comments from each of them should also be carefully considered when submitting the revised version, in order to improve the readability of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cinzia Calvio, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors are thankful to University Grant Commission 783 (UGC, India) and WBDSTBT, Govt. of West Bengal for providing financial support.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

 a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have read with interest this manuscript. The study is well designed, and the conclusions are supported (albeit not fully, see comments below), but I have some issues that I think the authors should address when preparing a new version of the manuscript. The main scope, at least if I understood correctly, was to identify the biotic (bacteria) and abiotic factors that are associated to oviposition choice (and larval presence/abundance). However, the study, contains many analyses that do not seem to be fully relevant to the aim of the study and sometimes it feels like the authors packed many experiments without a clear idea on their utility. E.g.: why performing electron microscopy analyses? Why antibiotic sensitivity? Why metabolic and physiological experiments? The authors should make clearer on what the entire work is based on how all such analyses are related.

I also provide a list of comments that I hope the authors would find helpful in preparing the revised version of their work.

Title: I think that it is not necessary to include the experimental locality in the title

Abstract: the authors should remove the detailed results from the abstract and instead report a concise overview on what are the main findings.

Introduction: in general, authors should 1) provide more information on the biology of Anopheles subpictus and its role in malaria transmission; 2) explain hypotheses and aims.

Line 50: I would use “species” instead of “genus and species”

Line 62: the authors say that “some had no correlation with the larval abundance”, however all previous lines refer to parameters that correlate to other factors, so it is not clear why mentioning non correlation to just larval abundance.

Lines 74-78: I think that the manuscript would benefit from referring to the experimental locality as a case study whose results can have a broader impact. Here it reads as if the experiments and their results are restricted and relevant to Hooghly mosquitoes only.

Lines 74-78: there is a discrepancy between the “aim” of knowing more the breeding habitat of the anopheline fauna and the fact that you then focus on An. subpictus.

Lines 88-92: how many replicas per aquatic body type?

Line 108: define S.E. (not at line 128)

Line 115: define BOD

Line 132: what does 10e-3 refers to? Dilution factor?

Line 154: are the breeding habitats like those used for bacterial sampling? Fort instance, can you exclude the possibility that bacterial composition of the sampling site did not interfere with oviposition site choice during the experiments? (bacteria experienced during the larval stage may for example influence the preference /avoidance for certain bacterial type present in the oviposition water)

Line 161: was the water from the natural breeding habitat from which that particular strain was collected or from a “general” habitat?

Lines 173-…: please clarify which bacterial isolates were used for the inoculations and where they come from.

Line 214: I do not understand what measure was done and what “nearly similar bacteria” refers to.

Line 215: NJ phylogenies are not reliable, if possible I highly recommend performing a ML (e.g using RAxML) analysis instead.

Lines 228-244: not clear why such experiments and analyses were conducted, please add one line to briefly explain the reason why antibiotic sensitivity and carbohydrate fermentation were necessary for the overall study.

Lines 247-249: please add some details about the experimental procedure.

Line 250 (Statistical analysis section): why not using a Tukey also for the differences of physico-chemical parameters among habitat types? Also, I recommend a non-parametric test (e.g. Wilcoxon) instead of the t-test

Table 1: I think that for the kind of data you are reporting, the use of Standard Deviation instead of S.E. is more suited.

Lines 279-…: I think that the series of numbers reported in this section are very difficult to interpret and that what reported in table 2 suffice for the reader, unless the authors prefer to point out some significant differences between habitats/season.

Lines 308-311 (and afterwards): please specify the test used to obtain the P values

Lines 338-…: please report P values associate to the Person correlation coefficients: negative or positive correlations, unless supported by statistically significant P values have no meaning; since all such r values are reported in Table 3 it is not necessary to repeat them in the main text (and I think a multiple testing correction would be desirable in your case, since many tests were performed; e.g. Holms-Bonferroni correction)

Line 360: what does it mean “significant correlation at alpha=0.05, p=<0.0001”?

Lines 363-..: as before, leave all numerical results in the Table and rather report only significant results.

Lines 391-…: why these bacteria isolates were not characterized using molecular approaches (see lines 194-215)? How much the use of culture-dependent identification methods may have affected the results?

Lines 400-…: again, you have already reported all results in the table, no need to repeat them here

Lines 427-…: again, you have already reported all results in the table, no need to repeat them here

Lines 488-490: these results are not relevant to the scope of the study; I think it is not necessary to report them

Lines 491-496: bootstraps values <80 or <90, depending on how much you wish to be conservative, are not reliable and therefore should not interpreted as a robust result (please write without %). I think it also more correct to write “X is closely related to Y” rather than “X branched with Y”. The phylogenetic analyses in this case are informative only regarding the species identification.

Lines 507-…: not sure I understand the usefulness of these analyses and results.

Lines 578-579: can the authors say something about the bacterial diversity present in the different habitats, so to make a connection to their analyses on oviposition choice driven by bacterial strain prevalence?

Lines 578-587: larval density is higher in ponds than rice fields, however can the authors say something about the extension of the two habitats and therefore on their role as breeding sites for Anopheles? For instance, if ponds are much less in umber and rice fields have a much larger extension, the latter may however represent the major source of mosquitoes.

Lines 588-599: not clear why temperature is considered as a major determinant of breeding success, since, as the authors have shown, other factors differ from monsoon and non-monsoon seasons.

Line 603: how much pH, and other abiotic factors, can affect bacterial composition and vice versa? In other words, what is the driving factor affecting other variables considered in this (and other) studies on habitat suitability?

Lines 613-616: is there the possibility that the contrasting preference between pH in the two species is the result of niche partitioning?

Line 625: without time-series data it is very speculative to claim possible adaptation to polluted water bodies, as they may just represent cases of oviposition site choice at the boundaries of the species’ preference.

Line 640: in general, I think that many factors that contribute to larvae abundance and oviposition site choice may be highly correlated one another. You should for example refer to the PCA plots, where you indicated (arrows) which factors co-correlate with the PCA components.

Lines 707-709: please discuss the possibility that both Bacillus and Anopheles prefer a certain type of water properties and thus the presence of the former is not a condition but a coincidence with the presence of the latter. (see also next section; and, in general, check this reference: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02036/full - it refers to Aedes species but may contain some useful information for your study)

Lines 752-761: the tolerance displayed by bacteria may not be relevant for mosquito control if, as the authors showed in this MS, mosquitos have a narrower tolerance towards such abiotic factors.

Lines 776-777: can the authors elaborate a little on which kind of bacterial manipulation can be performed to control mosquitoes?

Reviewer #2: The authors on this paper describe the physio-chemical features of the oviposition sites and the microbial community that might be linked to the attraction of female mosquitoes of Anopheles sub-ictus to the sites.

The paper is scientifically sound and the findings are interesting, but I think some points need clarification/revision.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The analysis of number of larvae per season in the different ponds have been done using two-way ANOVA. However, giving that the Rice-field are empty during winter, the data are missing (resulting in a non-normal data). This is a strong violation to the ANOVA requirements (there is no standard deviation, and the ANOVA evaluates the variation of the variance). I think a non-parametric test is more appropriate or a different statistical approach.

Analysis of the physio-chemical features on the oviposition sites. The authors used PCA followed by a regression analysis. I do not agree for two reasons: first, apart reporting the r value they should report the associated P. Second: doing that, they are testing multiple variables on the same outcome multiple times and that increase the Type I error in the analysis. I think a more feasible approach is the construction of a model (general linearized or mixed model?) in which all the variables are modelled for their influence on the outcome (the number of larvae).

Student t test of the number of eggs laid using isolates. I do not understand why the authors used an unpaired student t test instead of a paired t. The pairing is the two oviposition cups from the same experiment (those that contained water and isolates).

REPORT OF THE RESULTS.

I suggest the authors to remove from the text (and also from the abstract) the description of the results that are already reported in the tables. It does not add anything to the paper, is not easy to read and to interpret and the data are available in the tables.

MICROBIOLOGY ANALYSIS.

At line 363, in the results. I would avoid calling it "bacteria diversity". There are more sophisticated analysis of diversity and reducing bacteria diversity to the cultivable portion is strongly reductive. Furthermore, I think it is not the focus of the authors. The point here is to find isolates common to all the riding sites that can function ass attractants. I would re-write the paper in this terms, as otherwise is not clear.

METHODS:

Line 87: the authors state that they counted the larvae per dip. How were they sure they are An. subpictus? They mentioned later (in the oviposition assay) that they collected larvae, brought them in the lab and selected An. subpictus for oviposition assays, which means multiple species are present. Did they check all the larvae they've collected?

English needs revision. For example, at line 573, "It is very much important"...I would avoid such an hyperbolic phrasing.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 10;18(3):e0282825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282825.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Nov 2022

To

Cinzia Calvio

Academic Editor

PLoS ONE

Sub: Submission of revised manuscript (PONE-D-22-19958)

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email dated 28/09/2022 enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We are very much thankful to you and to the hon’ble reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions. We have carefully reviewd all the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given point-by-point manner below and the modified portions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

With regards,

Dr. Soumendranath Chatterjee

Professor

Department of Zoology

The University of Burdwan

Golapbag, Burdwan, West Bengal

�Our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. If there are any mistake, please let us know, so that we can modify that portion.

�According to your suggestion we have removed figure 1 from the revised manuscript as we were not able to take permission from the appropriate authority.

�We have provided the minimal data set underlying the results described in our manuscript and we have included the captions in Supporting Information files at the end of our manuscript, and also referred in-text to match accordingly.

Reviewer#1

�Comment 1: Title: I think that it is not necessary to include the experimental locality in the title.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer the name of experimental regional locality is omitted from the title.

�Comment 2: Abstract: the authors should remove the detailed results from the abstract and instead report a concise overview on what are the main findings.

�Author’s response: The abstract portion has been modified as per the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer and concise overview of the results has been incorporated in the abstract.

�Comment 3: Introduction: in general, authors should 1) provide more information on the biology of Anopheles subpictus and its role in malaria transmission; 2) explain hypotheses and aims.

�Author’s response: 1. According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, information on the biology of Anopheles subpictus and its role in malaria transmission have been provided in the revised manuscript. (Line no. 49-55 in revised manuscript).

2.The hypotheses and aims of the study have been included as per the suggestion of the hon’ble reviewer: “Our study focused whether both biological and chemical breeding habitat parameters have influenced the propagation and multiplication of this particular rural malarial vector species. So, the present study has been aimed to determine the significant physico-chemical characteristics as well as the microbial markers with a special reference to oviposition attractant bacterial strains having a positive influence towards the oviposition behaviour of gravid female An. subpictus mosquitoes”. (Line no. 80-86 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 4: Line 50: I would use “species” instead of “genus and species”

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer the word has been modified (Line no. 56 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 5: Line 62: the authors say that “some had no correlation with the larval abundance”, however all previous lines refer to parameters that correlate to other factors, so it is not clear why mentioning non correlation to just larval abundance.

�Author’s response: Reports of several previous research studies have indicated that among different physico-chemical parameters of mosquito breeding habitats, some parameters showed strong correlation (positive or negative) with larval pevalence whereas some had no correlation at all. That’s why this sentence was written so. This sentence has been modified: “Some of these parameters showed strong positive correlation, with the larval abundance” (Line no. 67-68 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 6: Lines 74-78: I think that the manuscript would benefit from referring to the experimental locality as a case study whose results can have a broader impact. Here it reads as if the experiments and their results are restricted and relevant to Hooghly mosquitoes only.

�Author’s response: From the title as well as from the manuscript the name of the regional experimental locality has already been omitted. An. subpictus mosquitoes is a house frequenting mosquito species and its distribution has been recorded from maximum countries of the world. It’s co-existance with other mosquito species in different breeding habitats has also been recorded by various researchers all over the world. So, although the study has been done in some rural areas of India, but the results of this study have really a broader impact which can elucidate the control strategies to be taken in other areas also.

�Comment 7: Lines 74-78: there is a discrepancy between the “aim” of knowing more the breeding habitat of the anopheline fauna and the fact that you then focus on An. subpictus.

�Author’s response: This portion have been corrected in the revised manuscript (Line no. 80 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 8: Lines 88-92: how many replicas per aquatic body type?

�Author’s response: Twenty replicas were taken per aquatic body type (Line no. 100 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 9: Line 108: define S.E. (not at line 128)

�Author’s response: S.E. is defined in revised manuscript (Line no. 122 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 10: Line 115: define BOD

�Author’s response: BOD is defined in revised manuscript (Line no. 129 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 11: Line 132: what does 10e-3 refers to? Dilution factor?

�Author’s response: 10-3 refers dilution (Line no. 147 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 12: Line 154: are the breeding habitats like those used for bacterial sampling? For instance, can you exclude the possibility that bacterial composition of the sampling site did not interfere with oviposition site choice during the experiments? (bacteria experienced during the larval stage may for example influence the preference /avoidance for certain bacterial type present in the oviposition water)

�Author’s response: Yes, same mosquito breeding habitats were used for physico-chemical and bacterial sampling from where the larval collection were done, as bacterial composition definitely interferes with the oviposition of gravid female mosquitoes (Line no. 103-106 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 13: Line 161: was the water from the natural breeding habitat from which that particular strain was collected or from a “general” habitat?

�Author’s response: The oviposition attractant bacterial strains were isolated from the natural breeding habitat water bodies of An. subpictus mosquitoes.

�Comment 14: Lines 173-…: please clarify which bacterial isolates were used for the inoculations and where they come from.

�Author’s response: Resident bacterial isolates (HABW1, HABW3, HABW4, HABW6, HABW10, HABW12, HABW14 and HABW15), prevalent all through the year in the natural breeding habitat water bodies of An. subpictus mosquitoes were exploited for the oviposition studies. (Line no. 186-188 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 15: Line 214: I do not understand what measure was done and what “nearly similar bacteria” refers to.

�Author’s response: Phylogenetic affiliation of the bacterial strains have been written as per the modified phylogenetic trees. ML phylogenetic analysis have also performed.

�Comment 16: Line 215: NJ phylogenies are not reliable, if possible I highly recommend performing a ML (e.g using RAxML) analysis instead.

�Author’s response: Phylogenetic affiliation of the bacterial strains have been written as per the modified phylogenetic trees. Phylogenetic trees performed through ML analysis method have also included in the revised manuscript (Line no. 227- 228, 502-524, Figs. 8-11).

�Comment 17: Lines 228-244: not clear why such experiments and analyses were conducted, please add one line to briefly explain the reason why antibiotic sensitivity and carbohydrate fermentation were necessary for the overall study.

�Author’s response: Release of oviposition attractant volatiles is associated with bacterial fermentation of different carbohydrate sources. So, in the laboratory we performed fermentation tests of bacterial isolates to different carbohydrate sources in addition to characterization purpose of the isolates. Besides characterization purpose, sensitivity of oviposition attractant bacterial strains to recommended doses of commercially available antibiotics was checked to determine the potent antibiotics which could have a significant antibacterial sensitive zone as recommended by the disc diffusion method and which could have an ability to kill or eliminate those particular bacterial strains performing as microbial markers for the oviposition of gravid female An. subpictus mosquitoes in their natural breeding habitat water bodies. Explanations for these tests have been added in the revised manuscript (Line no. 243-244, 259-263).

�Comment 18: Lines 247-249: please add some details about the experimental procedure.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, details about the experimental procedure of physiological tolerance test have been added in the revised manuscript. (Line no. 268-278 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 19: Line 250 (Statistical analysis section): why not using a Tukey also for the differences of physico-chemical parameters among habitat types? Also, I recommend a non-parametric test (e.g. Wilcoxon) instead of the t-test.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, Tukey test was performed to evaluate the differences of physico-chemical parameters among habitat types in different seasons and the results have been added in the revised manuscript (Line no. 281-282 and Figs 2-5 in revised manuscript). According to recommendation of hon’ble reviewer a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney test) was performed instead of t-test for winter season (Line no. 284, 337-339, 341-342 and Table S5 ).

�Comment 20: Table 1: I think that for the kind of data you are reporting, the use of Standard Deviation instead of S.E. is more suited.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, in table 1, while reporting the result of per dip larval density, Standard Deviation (S.D) was used instead of standard error (S.E). (Line no. 310-312, Table 1)

�Comment 21: Lines 279-…: I think that the series of numbers reported in this section are very difficult to interpret and that what reported in table 2 suffice for the reader, unless the authors prefer to point out some significant differences between habitats/season.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, data series from the text have been removed and presented only in the table.

�Comment 22: Lines 308-311 (and afterwards): please specify the test used to obtain the P values

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, the test used to obtain the p values have been specified in the revised manuscript. (Line no. 333-345 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 23: Lines 338-…: please report P values associate to the Person correlation coefficients: negative or positive correlations, unless supported by statistically significant P values have no meaning; since all such r values are reported in Table 3 it is not necessary to repeat them in the main text (and I think a multiple testing correction would be desirable in your case, since many tests were performed; e.g. Holms-Bonferroni correction).

�Author’s response: As per the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, multiple testing correction (Holms-Bonferroni correction) have been performed and the p values associate to the Person correlation coefficients have been given in the revised manuscript (Table 3).

�Comment 24: Line 360: what does it mean “significant correlation at alpha=0.05, p=<0.0001”?

�Author’s response: This portion have been corrected in the revised manuscript.

�Comment 25: Lines 363-..: as before, leave all numerical results in the Table and rather report only significant results.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, this portion have been modified in revised manuscript.

�Comment 26: Lines 391-…: why these bacteria isolates were not characterized using molecular approaches (see lines 194-215)? How much the use of culture-dependent identification methods may have affected the results?

�Author’s response: All resident bacterial isolates were characterized through phenotypic and bio-chemical methods for primary screening. Molecular characterization with a special reference to phylogenetic affiliation based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing of oviposition attractant bacteria were performed besides their phenotypic and bio-chemical characterizations for the identification through polyphasic taxonomic methods of the particular strains responsible for the oviposition of An. subpictus mosquito.

�Comment 27: Lines 400-…: again, you have already reported all results in the table, no need to repeat them here

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, data (provided in table 5) have been removed from the text. (Line no. 454-455 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 28: Lines 427-…: again, you have already reported all results in the table, no need to repeat them here

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, data (provided in table 7) have been removed from the text.

�Comment 29: Lines 488-490: these results are not relevant to the scope of the study; I think it is not necessary to report them.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, results of this section have been omitted from the revised manuscript.

�Comment 30: Lines 491-496: bootstraps values <80 or <90, depending on how much you wish to be conservative, are not reliable and therefore should not interpreted as a robust result (please write without %). I think it also more correct to write “X is closely related to Y” rather than “X branched with Y”. The phylogenetic analyses in this case are informative only regarding the species identification.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, this portion have been modified in revised manuscript. (Line no. 227- 228, 502-524, Figs. 8-11).

“Through neighbour-joining method Bacillus cereus HABW1 (MN153450) was found closely related to B. cereus (MH210863), whereas, ML method indicated that the bacterial isolate B. cereus HABW1 (MN153450) was closely similar to B. cereus (HQ684015). Neighbour-joining tree of Bacillus megaterium HABW4 (MN173350) indicated that this bacteria is closely related with B.megaterium (KX495254) and according to ML tree this bacterial isolate is closely related with B. megaterium (KP017584) & B. megaterium (HQ634276).Both neighbour-joining and ML tree of Bacillus subtilis HABW10 (MN166905) indicated that this bacterial strain is closely related to B. subtilis (EF633176). Phylogenetic tree prepared by both neighbour- joining and ML method indicated that Bacillus tequilensis HABW14 (MZ363639) closely related with B. tequilensis (MK018119)”

�Comment 31: Lines 507-…: not sure I understand the usefulness of these analyses and results.

�Author’s response: Through scanning electron microscopy bacterial shape, surface morphology and endospore bearing properties were examined.

�Comment 32: Lines 578-579: can the authors say something about the bacterial diversity present in the different habitats, so to make a connection to their analyses on oviposition choice driven by bacterial strain prevalence?

�Author’s response: Reports of earlier workers elicited the differences in microbial composition among mosquito larvae present in different habitats but similar bacterial communities among larvae sharing the same breeding habitat (Scolari et al, 2019). During the present study, analyses of different bacterial groups indicated the abundance of spore forming Bacillus population with starch hydrolyzing & nitrate reducing capacity in the pond water, with the higher prevalence of An. subpictus larvae than those occurring in rice-fields and drain water throughout the entire study period. Present study identified four bacterial strains, namely Bacillus cereus HABW1 (MN153450), B. megaterium HABW4 (MN173350), B. subtilis HABW10 (MN166905) and B. tequilensis HABW14 (MZ363639) and all of them except B. megaterium HABW4 (MN173350) were positive for starch hydrolysis and nitrate reduction test. So, it may be inferred that spore forming Bacillus group having starch hydrolyzing, nitrate reducing properties, were present in higher frequency in pond water than rice-field and drain water, and acted as potent oviposition attractant strains for gravid female An. subpictus. This portion is discussed in the revised manuscript (Line no. 756-767 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 33: Lines 578-587: larval density is higher in ponds than rice fields, however can the authors say something about the extension of the two habitats and therefore on their role as breeding sites for Anopheles? For instance, if ponds are much less in number and rice fields have a much larger extension, the latter may however represent the major source of mosquitoes.

�Author’s response: Although the higher larval density has been potrayed from the water logged ponds than submerged rice-fields, the similar physico-chemical parameters of the water bodies of ponds and rice-fields having some common oviposition attractant bacterial strains indicate that there may be a possibility of the submerged rice-fields to be considered as major sources of An. subpictus mosquitoes in the absence of or much less number of ponds in an area. This expalnation has been added in the revised manuscript (Line no. 592-598 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 34: Lines 588-599: not clear why temperature is considered as a major determinant of breeding success, since, as the authors have shown, other factors differ from monsoon and non-monsoon seasons.

�Author’s response: Although there are many factors which together are responsible for breeding success of mosquito vectors, among them temperature is considered as one of the major survivibility factors of insects. In the present study, although there is no much differences in water temperature between habitat types during a particular season, but, it was observed that during the winter season, when the temperature of water was very low, the larval population of An. subpictus became decreased to a great extent than monsoon and post-monsoon season. As the mosquitoes are poikilothermic animals, so their internal temperature fluctuates with the temperature of surrounding environment and that is why environmental temperature have great impact in different life history stages of mosquitoes (Line no. 598-605 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 35: Line 603: how much pH, and other abiotic factors, can affect bacterial composition and vice versa? In other words, what is the driving factor affecting other variables considered in this (and other) studies on habitat suitability?

�Author’s response: pH of water bodies might have direct or indirect affect on bacterial growth in habitat water. In the present study, physiological tolerance test indicated that, all the four-oviposition attractant bacterial isolates had wide range of pH tolerance (5-11), although they exhibited optimum growth between pH 7.5-9.5 of the culture media. So, when pH of water bodies becomes highly acidic (<5) or highly basic (>11), these bacterial strains would not be able to survive. Anopheles subpictus mosquitoes showed their preference to a pH range between 6.5-7.5 of the habitat water, which is also a tolerable range for bacterial isolates. Physico-chemical parameters of water were co-corelated with one another, such as increase in the dissolve ions and mineral contents of water increased the pH and hardness of water. Hard water with high pH might have negative impact on An. subpictus larvae. So no single factor could play a major role in determining an ideal habitat, rather a group of factors together were responsible for generating a suitable habitat for the breeding and survival of An. subpictus mosquitoes (Line no. 680-687 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 36: Lines 613-616: is there the possibility that the contrasting preference between pH in the two species is the result of niche partitioning?

�Author’s response: In the present study, larval prevalence of An. subpictus showed negative correlation with the alkalinity of breeding habitat water. According to Ghosh et al. (2020), An. stephensi mosquitoes from some rural and urban areas of West Bengal was also found to have negative correlation with alkalinity of breeding habitat water. But according to the report of Thomas et al. (2016), the same species (An. stephensi) in some areas of south-eastern Chennai showed opposite result, i.e. they showed significant positive correlation with the alkalinity of breeding habitat water. Niche partitioning allows more than one species to live in the same geographical area accessing different resources. But, in this case we recorded the contrasting result in respect to breeding habitat alkalinity preference of An. subpictus with the result as recorded by Thomas et al. (2016). In the present study, among the anopheline larvae, we captured only An. subpictus larvae from the habitat water and no other anopheline species was detected during the entire study period, so there was no chances of niche partitioning. But, if these two species can co-exist in any area and show contrasting preference regarding any physico-chemical parameter (for eg. alkalinity) of habitat water, then it might be concluded that this happen obviously due to niche partitioning.

�Comment 37: Line 625: without time-series data it is very speculative to claim possible adaptation to polluted water bodies, as they may just represent cases of oviposition site choice at the boundaries of the species’ preference.

�Author’s response: It was merely an observation and this portion has been deleted from the manuscript.

�Comment 38: Line 640: in general, I think that many factors that contribute to larvae abundance and oviposition site choice may be highly correlated one another. You should for example refer to the PCA plots, where you indicated (arrows) which factors co-correlate with the PCA components.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, this portion has been described in the revised manuscript (Line no. 364-405 and Tables S6-S9).

�Comment 39: Lines 707-709: please discuss the possibility that both Bacillus and Anopheles prefer a certain type of water properties and thus the presence of the former is not a condition but a coincidence with the presence of the latter. (see also next section; and, in general, check this reference: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02036/full - it refers to Aedes species but may contain some useful information for your study)

�Author’s response: Earlier reports of several researchers indicated that spore forming Bacillus group of bacteria could have the ability to decompose organic matter of breeding habitat water-bodies, maintenance of phosphate and nitrate contents, hardness of water, pH and alkalinity of water within tolerable limits (Zink et al., 2011; Hainfellner et al, 2018; Hura et al., 2018; Barman et al, 2018; Elsabagh et al, 2018). Bacillus spp. could also enumerate in comparatively more clean, soft and stagnant breeding habitat waterbodies with high dissolve oxygen content, where An. subpictus mosquitoes also showed higher prevalence exhibiting the co-existence of anopheline larvae and spore forming Bacillus bacterial strains. This portion has been discussed in the revised manuscript (Line no. 694-698 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 40: Lines 752-761: the tolerance displayed by bacteria may not be relevant for mosquito control if, as the authors showed in this MS, mosquitos have a narrower tolerance towards such abiotic factors.

�Author’s response: All the breeding habitat water bacterial isolates were found to tolerate the pH 5-11, although they exhibited optimum growth between pH 7.5-9.5 of the culture media. They could tolerate a temperature range between 150C to 450C, although their optimum growth was recorded at a temperature range between 300C to 350C. These isolates could tolerate up to 4% NaCl concentration of the growth medium. Present observation depicted that higher larval prevalence of An. subpictus at a water temperature ranging between 270C -290C and pH of the habitat water ranging between 6.5-7.5. In these temperature and pH range, breeding habitat bacteria also showed higher amount of growth. (Line no. 784-787 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 41: Lines 776-777: can the authors elaborate a little on which kind of bacterial manipulation can be performed to control mosquitoes?

�Author’s response: If these oviposition attractant bacterial isolates could be ruined from the mosquito breeding sites through ecofriendly bactericidal or bacteriostatic plant extracts, the rate of egg laying by mosquito vectors will be minimized, in such a way, which would obviously contribute an alternative strategy of vector management in malaria prone areas. (Line no. 805-809 in revised manuscript).

Reviewer #2: 

�Comment 1: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. The analysis of number of larvae per season in the different ponds have been done using two-way ANOVA. However, giving that the Rice-field are empty during winter, the data are missing (resulting in a non-normal data). This is a strong violation to the ANOVA requirements (there is no standard deviation, and the ANOVA evaluates the variation of the variance). I think a non-parametric test is more appropriate or a different statistical approach.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer a non-parametric test of two-way ANOVA (Friedman test) have been performed. This portion is corrected in the revised manuscript (Line no. 280-281, 307-309, Table S1).

�Comment 2: Analysis of the physio-chemical features on the oviposition sites. The authors used PCA followed by a regression analysis. I do not agree for two reasons: first, apart reporting the r value they should report the associated P. Second: doing that, they are testing multiple variables on the same outcome multiple times and that increase the Type I error in the analysis. I think a more feasible approach is the construction of a model (general linearized or mixed model?) in which all the variables are modelled for their influence on the outcome (the number of larvae).

�Author’s response: As per the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, during correlation analysis, multiple testing correction (Holms-Bonferroni correction) have been performed and the p values associate to the Person correlation coefficients have been given in the revised manuscript (Line no. 289-291, 415-419, Table 3). A generalized linear model (GLM) has been constructed with larval density as dependent variable and all physico-chemical parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids, total hardness, electrical conductivity, chloride, nitrate and phosphate) as predictors. This portion has been added in the revised manuscript. (Line no. 291-295 421-431, Table S10 and Fig 7 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 3: Student t test of the number of eggs laid using isolates. I do not understand why the authors used an unpaired student t test instead of a paired t. The pairing is the two oviposition cups from the same experiment (those that contained water and isolates).

�Author’s response: Yes sir, it is our mistake. We have performed paired t test between test cups and control cups and corrected this portion in the revised manuscript. (Line no. 296, 477-488, Table 8 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 4: REPORT OF THE RESULTS. I suggest the authors to remove from the text (and also from the abstract) the description of the results that are already reported in the tables. It does not add anything to the paper, is not easy to read and to interpret and the data are available in the tables.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, description of results that are already reported in tables are removed from the text and abstract.

�Comment 5: MICROBIOLOGY ANALYSIS. At line 363, in the results. I would avoid calling it "bacteria diversity". There are more sophisticated analysis of diversity and reducing bacteria diversity to the cultivable portion is strongly reductive. Furthermore, I think it is not the focus of the authors. The point here is to find isolates common to all the riding sites that can function ass attractants. I would re-write the paper in this terms, as otherwise is not clear.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, the term "bacteria diversity" has been removed in the revised manuscript and written as “Populations of different bacterial groups in breeding habitats”. (Line no. 432 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 6: METHODS: Line 87: the authors state that they counted the larvae per dip. How were they sure they are An. subpictus? They mentioned later (in the oviposition assay) that they collected larvae, brought them in the lab and selected An. subpictus for oviposition assays, which means multiple species are present. Did they check all the larvae they've collected?

�Author’s response: During larval collection from mosquito breeding habitats, Culex and Aedes larvae were also captured in addition to Anopheles subpictus larvae as the only anopheline mosquito species. When per dip larval density was calculated, only anopheline larvae were counted based on the morphological identification characters like absence of any siphon tube in their last abdominal segment. After emergence of adult from the larvae reared in the laboratory, all of the anophelines were identified and confirmed as Anopheles subpictus by morpho-taxonomic method (Nagpal & Sharma, 1995), and, no other species of Anopheles were identified. Only An. subpictus mosquitoes were sorted for further ovipositional bioassay. This portion has been modified in the revised manuscript (Line no. 179-180 in revised manuscript).

�Comment 7: English needs revision. For example, at line 573, "It is very much important"...I would avoid such an hyperbolic phrasing.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, the whole manuscript was checked for such type of errors and have been corrected carefully. (Line no. 578-580 in revised manuscript).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Cinzia Calvio

16 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-19958R1Combined effect of physico-chemical and microbial quality of breeding habitat water on oviposition of malarial vector Anopheles subpictus .PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chatterjee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================Please, take into consideration the stylistic comments from Reviewer 3, to improve the quality of your manuscript.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cinzia Calvio, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments-PONE-D-22-19958.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 10;18(3):e0282825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282825.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Feb 2023

To

Cinzia Calvio

Academic Editor

PLoS ONE

Sub: Submission of revised manuscript (PONE-D-22-19958R1)

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email dated 16/01/2023 enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We are very much thankful to you and to the hon’ble reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions. We have carefully reviewd all the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given point-by-point manner below and the modified portions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

With regards,

Dr. Soumendranath Chatterjee

Professor

Department of Zoology

The University of Burdwan

Golapbag, Burdwan, West Bengal

�Introduction:

�Comment 1: Line 48 – Malarial pathogens, change to “Malaria parasites”.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer in line 48 the words ‘Malarial pathogens’ have been changed to “Malaria parasites”.

�Comment 2: Line 48 – This statement “they can easily transmit this protozoan parasite from one human host to another” is redundant, remove it. The remaining sentence should read “Females of different species of Anopheles mosquitoes serve as vectors of malaria parasites due to their blood sucking behavior”.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, the statement “they can easily transmit this protozoan parasite from one human host to another” has been removed from the revised manuscript and written as “Females of different species of Anopheles mosquitoes serve as vectors of malaria parasites due to their blood sucking behavior” (Line no. 47-48).

�Comment 3: Line 69 – 72: …where researchers showed….note that, researchers do not show, rather studies finds or show/indicates …..led to reduce .. it should be “led to a reduction in”

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, this sentence has been modified as “Several studies indicated that killing of these bacteria by sterilization technique or addition of effective antibiotics to the breeding habitat water led to a reduction in ovipositional response by adult gravid female mosquitoes” (Line no. 80-82 in the revised manuscript).

�Comment 4: The background has not adequately indicated as to why this study was conducted and what is the significance of the study. Authors should ensure that the rationale of the study is clearly stated in the study background.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, background of the study have been described in the revised manuscript (line no. 83-95).

�Comment 4: It is also important to slightly describe the malaria burden in the district/area.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, malaria burden in the district have been described in the revised manuscript (line no. 58-63).

�Methodology

�Comment 5: Study area and study period: Based on the nature of the study, it is important to describe some basic climatic features of the study area, including rainfall, temperature, seasons of the year, etc.

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, climatic features of the study area have been described in the methodology section of the revised manuscript (line no. 102-104).

�Comment 6: Field survey & collection of habitat water

Authors have to describe in detail how did they identify and select the breeding sites on which samples were collected. Was it throughout the district, were they randomly sampled, how many were they?

�Author’s response: Samples were collected from four blocks (Tarakeswar, Singur, Chinsurah-Mogra and Panduah) of Hooghly district (mentioned in materials and methodology section under study area and study period; line no. 100-102). In these four blocks of Hooghly district, suspected water bodies were checked randomly for the presence of Anopheles subpictus larvae. Samples were collected from those water bodies, where larval prevalence of An. subpictus were recorded during the study period (line no. 106-108).

�Comment 7: Processing of water samples for bacterial isolation

This subheading should be placed before Analysis of bacterial populations of water

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, the subheading “Processing of water samples for bacterial isolation” (line no. 135) was added before “Analysis of bacterial populations of water”

�Results

�Comment 8: For clarity and easy comprehension re-arrange table 2 as shown below

Table 2. Seasonwise physico-chemical parameters (Mean±S.E.) of different habitat waterbodies of Anopheles subpictus.

Parameter Summer Monsoon Post-monsoon Winter

Pond Dain Rice field Pond Dain Rice field Pond Dain Rice field Pond Dain Rice field

Temperature (oC)

DO (mg/L)

Alk

pH

Turb

TDS

T.H

E.C

Cl-

NO3-

PO4-

�Author’s response: According to the suggestion of hon’ble reviewer, table 2 has been re-arranged in the revised manuscript (Line no. 344-346).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

Decision Letter 2

Cinzia Calvio

24 Feb 2023

Combined effect of physico-chemical and microbial quality of breeding habitat water on oviposition of malarial vector Anopheles subpictus .

PONE-D-22-19958R2

Dear Dr. Chatterjee,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Cinzia Calvio, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Cinzia Calvio

1 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-19958R2

Combined effect of physico-chemical and microbial quality of breeding habitat water on oviposition of malarial vector Anopheles subpictus

Dear Dr. Chatterjee:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Cinzia Calvio

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Data of larval density and physico-chemical parameters of different types of aquatic bodies in four different seasons.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Data of number of colonies counted over respective agar media and cfu of different bacterial populations in different types of aquatic bodies in four different seasons.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Data related to mosquito oviposition.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Fig. Growth of bacterial colonies of mosquito breeding habitats on different agar media.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Gram staining of common bacterial isolates from breeding habitats of An. subpictus mosquito.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. A & B. Friedman test for significant effect of season and habitat types on larval density of Anopheles subpictus.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. One-Way ANOVA for physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types (ponds, drains & rice-fields) during summer season.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. One-Way ANOVA for physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types (ponds, drains & rice-fields) during monsoon season.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. One-Way ANOVA for physico-chemical parameters of different habitat types (ponds, drains & rice-fields) during post-monsoon season.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Mann-Whitney test for physico-chemical parameters between ponds and drains during winter season.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during summer season.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during monsoon season.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during post-monsoon season.

    (DOCX)

    S9 Table. A, B & C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for larval density and physico-chemical parameters of habitat water during winter season.

    (DOCX)

    S10 Table. A, B & C. Univariate Tests of Significance for larval density (L.D).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments-PONE-D-22-19958.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES