Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the ovicidal and oviposition deterrent activities of five medicinal plant extracts namely Aegle marmelos (Linn.), Limonia acidissima (Linn.), Sphaeranthus indicus (Linn.), Sphaeranthus amaranthoides (burm.f), and Chromolaena odorata (Linn.) against Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Three solvents, namely hexane, ethyl acetate, and methanol, were used for the preparation of extracts from each plant.
Methods
Four different concentrations—62.5 parts per million (ppm), 125 ppm, 250 ppm, and 500 ppm—were prepared using acetone and tested for ovicidal and oviposition deterrent activities. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significance of the treatments and means were separated by Tukey's test of comparison.
Results
Among the different extracts of the five plants screened, the hexane extract of L. acidissima recorded the highest ovicidal activity of 79.2% and 60% at 500 ppm concentration against the eggs of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively. Similarly, the same hexane extract of L. acidissima showed 100% oviposition deterrent activity at all the tested concentrations against Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti adult females.
Conclusion
It is concluded that the hexane extract of L. acidissima could be used in an integrated mosquito management program.
Keywords: bioassay, medicinal plant extracts, vector mosquitoes
1. Introduction
Mosquitoes are medically important insects and are considered major public health pests [1]. Mosquitoes transmit many dreadful diseases to humans and other vertebrates; therefore, they have been declared “Public Enemy Number One” [2]. Mosquitoes belonging to the genera Aedes and Culex are transmitting dengue, dengue hemorrhagic fever, yellow fever, chikungunya, Japanese encephalitis, and filariasis [3,4]. Mosquito bites cause allergic responses including local skin reactions and systemic reactions such as angioedema and urticaria [5]. Tropical areas are more vulnerable to mosquito-borne diseases and the risk of contracting arthropod-borne illnesses is increased due to climate change and intensifying globalization [6].
It is imperative to control mosquitoes in order to prevent mosquito-borne diseases and improve public health. Aedes aegypti is the primary vector of dengue, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and chikungunya. Dengue fever is endemic in south-east Asia including India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan [7]. Dengue fever has become an important public health problem as the number of reported cases continues to increase, especially with more severe forms of the disease such as dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome or with unusual symptoms such as central nervous system involvement [8,9]. Culex quinquefasciatus is an important vector of lymphatic filariasis in tropical and subtropical regions. It is a pantropical pest and urban vector of Wuchereria bancrofti [10] and is possibly the most abundant house mosquito in towns and cities of tropical countries. According to [11], about 90 million people worldwide are infected with W. bancrofti, and 10 times more people are at risk of being infected. In India alone, 25 million people harbor microfilaria (mf) and 19 million people suffer from filarial disease manifestations [12].
In recent years, mosquito control programs have suffered a setback because mosquitoes are developing resistance to synthetic chemical insecticides such as organochlorides, organophosphates and carbamates and insect growth regulators such as methoprene, pyriproxyfen, and diflubenzuron [13–16]. Moreover, many organophosphates and organochlorides adversely affect the environment and damage biological systems [17]. These side effects of synthetic chemicals prompted many researchers to find environment-friendly alternatives for mosquito management. Literature reveals sufficient amounts of work on the mosquito control potential of plant extracts and plant essential oils [18–25].
The present study was undertaken to evaluate the ovicidal and oviposition deterrent activities of five medicinal plant extracts namely Aegle marmelos (Linn.), Sphaeranthus indicus (Linn.), Sphaeranthus amaranthoides (burm.f), Limonia acidissima (Linn.), and Chromolaena odorata (Linn.) against Ae. aegypti and Cx. quinquefasciatus mosquitoes.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Collection of plant material
The matured leaves of each plant were collected from Chennai, Tirunelveli and surrounding areas in Tamil Nadu, India and the plant species were authenticated by a Botanist at Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. The voucher specimens (ERI-LA-MOS-210-214) of each plant species were deposited in the herbarium of the institute. The collected leaves were shade-dried for 5 days and coarsely powdered using an electric blender.
2.2. Preparation of solvent extracts
Crude extracts were prepared from the powdered leaves of each plant by a sequential extraction method using hexane, ethyl acetate, and methanol solvents (Fisher Scientific and Himeddia, Chennai, India). Leaf powder (1 kg) of each plant was soaked in 3 L of hexane for 48 hours with intermittent shaking. The extract was filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper, concentrated in a rotary evaporator (Medica instruments Mgf.Co. Sl.No:EV11.JF.012), and finally dried in vacuum. The residue was soaked in other solvents consecutively and extracted. All the crude extracts were stored at 4°C in air-tight glass vials in the dark until used.
2.3. Test mosquitoes
The mosquito life stages used in this study were obtained from the Entomology Research Institute, and they were free of exposure to pathogens, insecticides, or repellents. The rearing conditions were: 28 ± 1°C; 70–75% relative humidity (RH); and 11 ± 0.5-hour photoperiod [26].
2.4. Ovicidal assay
Ovicidal activity was studied following the method of Elango et al [27]. Twenty five freshly laid eggs of Ae. aegypti and Cx. quinquefasciatus were separately exposed to four different concentrations, namely 62.5 parts per million (ppm), 125 ppm, 250 ppm, and 500 ppm, prepared using acetone. Each concentration was replicated five times. Control (acetone in water) was maintained separately and egg mortality was observed under the microscope. Azadirachtin (10 ppm) and temephos (10 ppm) were used as positive controls for comparison with five replications each. The percent ovicidal activity was assessed at 120 hours post-treatment using the following formula:
2.5. Oviposition deterrent assay
The oviposition deterrent activity was assessed using earlier reported methods [27,28] with slight modifications. Ten blood-fed females of Ae. aegypti and Cx. quinquefasciatus (10 days old, 2 days after blood feeding) were transferred to separate cages (45 cm × 45 cm × 45 cm) made of mosquito net with a muslin socket on the front side for access. In each cage, four plastic bowls holding 200 mL of tap water were placed in opposite corners of each cage; one bowl was treated with the test material (extract), two bowls were used for positive control (temephos and azadirachtin), and the other one served as control. The concentrations used were 62.5 ppm, 125 ppm, 250 ppm, and 500 ppm. Each concentration was replicated five times. Sucrose solution (10%) was provided to the adult as feed throughout the study period. Experiments were carried out at room temperature (28 ± 1°C; RH: 70–75%) for a period of 72 hours. After 72 hours, the number of eggs laid in each bowl was counted and recorded. The percent effective repellency (ER) for each concentration was calculated using the following formula:
where NC is the number of eggs in the control, and NT is the number of eggs in the treatment.
2.6. Statistical analysis
The mean values and standard deviations were calculated from replication data. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significance of the treatments and means were separated by Tukey's test of multiple comparisons using SPSS software (version 11.5; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Ovicidal activity results
Among the different extracts of the five plants screened, the hexane extract of L. acidissima recorded the highest ovicidal activity of 79.2% and 60% at 500 ppm concentration against the eggs of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively (Tables 1 and 2). The hexane extract of A. marmelos recorded moderate ovicidal activity of 53.6% and 48.8% at 500 ppm concentration against the eggs of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively (Tables 1 and 2). The ethyl acetate extract of C. odorata recorded 42.4% and 13.6% at 500 ppm concentration against the eggs of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively. The other two plant extracts showed much less ovicidal activity. The positive control azadirachtin recorded ovicidal activity of 95.2% and 92.8% at 10 ppm concentration against the eggs of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively. Temephos recorded 46.4% and 44% at 10 ppm concentration against the eggs of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively (Tables 1 and 2). Overall, the ovicidal activity was higher against Cx. quinquefasciatus eggs than Ae. aegypti eggs.
Table 1.
Percent ovicidal activity of crude extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus eggs.
| Mosquito species | Plant | Treatment | Concentration (ppm) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62.5 | 125 | 250 | 500 | |||
| Culex quinquefasciatus | Aegle marmelos | Hexane | 7.1 ± 2.08b | 14.4 ± 6.06b | 22.4 ± 2.19b | 53.6 ± 2.19b |
| Ethyl acetate | 6.4 ± 2.19bc | 9.6 ± 2.19bc | 20.0 ± 2.82bc | 43.2 ± 1.78c | ||
| Methanol | 3.2 ± 1.78bcd | 7.2 ± 1.78c | 14.4 ± 2.19cd | 28 ± 2.82ef | ||
| Limonia acidissima | Hexane | 17.6 ± 2.19a | 36 ± 2.82a | 56.8 ± 3.34a | 79.2 ± 3.34a | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0cd | 0.8 ± 1.78d | 1.6 ± 3.57f | 4.0 ± 2.82hi | ||
| Methanol | 4 ± 2.82bcd | 8.8 ± 3.34c | 18.4 ± 2.19bcd | 39.2 ± 1.38cd | ||
| Sphaeranthus indicus | Hexane | 3.2 ± 1.78bcd | 7.2 ± 3.34c | 13.6 ± 2.19cd | 25.6 ± 2.19f | |
| Ethyl acetate | 2.4 ± 2.19bcd | 7.2 ± 1.78c | 14.4 ± 2.19cd | 29.6 ± 2.19ef | ||
| Methanol | 1.6 ± 2.19cd | 4.8 ± 1.78cd | 6.4 ± 2.19ef | 15.2 ± 3.34g | ||
| Sphaeranthus amaranthaides | Hexane | 3 ± 2.73bcd | 7.8 ± 3.03c | 16 ± 4.48bcd | 33 ± 2.73de | |
| Ethyl acetate | 4 ± 2.82bcd | 8 ± 2.82c | 15.2 ± 1.78cd | 30.4 ± 2.19ef | ||
| Methanol | 4 ± 2.82bcd | 9.6 ± 2.19bc | 16 ± 2.82bcd | 32.8 ± 3.34de | ||
| Chromolaena odorata | Hexane | 3.2 ± 3.34bcd | 6.4 ± 2.19c | 12.8 ± 4.38de | 24.8 ± 3.34f | |
| Ethyl acetate | 4 ± 2.82bcd | 9.6 ± 2.19bc | 19.2 ± 3.34bcd | 42.4 ± 2.19c | ||
| Methanol | 0cd | 0d | 4 ± 2.82f | 9.6 ± 2.19gh | ||
| Control | 1.6 ± 2.19cd | 0.8 ± 1.78d | 0.8 ± 1.78f | 0i | ||
| Azadirachtin (10 ppm) | 95.2 ± 1.78 | |||||
| Temephos (10 ppm) | 46.4 ± 3.57 | |||||
Data are the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of five replicates; Means were separated by Tukey's test of multiple comparisons, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
ppm = parts per million.
p ≤ 0.5, level of significance.
Results with same letters in the column are not significantly different.
Table 2.
Percent ovicidal activity of crude extracts against Aedes aegypti eggs.
| Mosquito species | Plant | Treatment | Concentration (ppm) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62.5 | 125 | 250 | 500 | |||
| Aedes aegypti | Aegle marmelos | Hexane | 6.4 ± 1.78ab | 13.6 ± 2.19b | 26.4 ± 5.21a | 48.8 ± 4.38b |
| Ethyl acetate | 1.6 ± 2.19cd | 5.6 ± 3.57c | 10.4 ± 5.36b | 24.8 ± 4.38c | ||
| Methanol | 4 ± 2.82bc | 7.2 ± 1.78c | 11.2 ± 4.38b | 24.8 ± 1.34c | ||
| Limonia acidissima | Hexane | 8 ± 2.82a | 17.6 ± 2.19a | 29.6 ± 2.19a | 60 ± 2.82a | |
| Ethyl acetate | 2.4 ± 2.19cd | 5.6 ± 1.19c | 11.2 ± 1.78b | 19.2 ± 3.34cd | ||
| Methanol | 0d | 0.8 ± 1.78e | 4 ± 2.82cd | 6.4 ± 1.34fg | ||
| Sphaeranthus indicus | Hexane | 0d | 1.6 ± 2.19de | 4.0 ± 2.82cd | 8.8 ± 3.34ef | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0d | 0e | 0d | 3.2 ± 1.78fg | ||
| Methanol | 0d | 0e | 0.8 ± 1.78cd | 2.4 ± 3.57fg | ||
| Sphaeranthus amaranthaides | Hexane | 0d | 0e | 2.4 ± 3.57cd | 4.8 ± 4.38fg | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0d | 0e | 0d | 0g | ||
| Methanol | 0d | 0.8 ± 1.78e | 1.6 ± 2.19cd | 3.2 ± 1.78fg | ||
| Chromolaena odorata | Hexane | 0d | 0e | 0.8 ± 2.19cd | 3.2 ± 4.38fg | |
| Ethyl acetate | 1.6 ± 3.57cd | 4.8 ± 3.34cd | 6.4 ± 2.19bc | 13.6 ± 2.19de | ||
| Methanol | 0d | 0e | 0d | 1.6 ± 2.19g | ||
| Control | 0d | 00.8 ± 1.78e | 00.8 ± 1.78cd | 1.6 ± 2.19g | ||
| Azadirachtin (10 ppm) | 92.8 ± 3.34 | |||||
| Temephos (10 ppm) | 44 ± 2.82 | |||||
Data are mean ± standard deviation (SD) of five replicates. Means are separated by Tukey's test of multiple comparisons, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
ppm = parts per million.
p ≤ 0.5, level of significance.
Results with same letters in the column are not significantly different.
3.2. Oviposition deterrent activity results
Among the five plant extracts screened, the hexane extract of L. acidissima showed 100% oviposition deterrent activity at all the tested concentrations against Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti adult females (Tables 3 and 4). At 500 ppm concentration, the hexane extract of A. marmelos recorded 76.74% and 71.79% oviposition deterrent activity against Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively (Tables 3 and 4). The ethyl acetate extract of S. amaranthoides recorded 22.31% and 20.48% oviposition deterrent activity at 500 ppm concentration against Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively. The extracts of S. indicus and C. odorata showed the least oviposition deterrent activity at all the tested concentrations against two mosquito species (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 3.
Percent oviposition deterrent activity of crude extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus adult females.
| Mosquito species | Plant | Treatment | Concentration (ppm) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62.5 | 125 | 250 | 500 | |||
| Culex quinquefasciatus | Aegle marmelos | Hexane | 23.09 ± 2.22b | 46.79 ± 1.30b | 56.67 ± 0.95b | 76.74 ± 1.02b |
| Ethyl acetate | 8.73 ± 2.15c | 20.25 ± 2.13c | 32.87 ± 1.30c | 47.56 ± 1.48c | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 4.24 ± 2.30f | 11.91 ± 2.22ef | 20.91 ± 1.65fg | ||
| Limonia acidissima | Hexane | 100a | 100a | 100a | 100a | |
| Ethyl acetate | 2.81 ± 1.79d | 8.50 ± 2.39de | 20.68 ± 2.06d | 30.01 ± 1.75e | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 5.11 ± 2.74f | 11.80 ± 2.14f | 17.74 ± 1.25g | ||
| Sphaeranthus indicus | Hexane | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0i | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0e | 0g | 7.64 ± 1.55g | 11.47 ± 1.75h | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0i | ||
| Sphaeranthus amaranthaides | Hexane | 2.06 ± 1.21de | 5.45 ± 1.62ef | 9.93 ± 2.64fg | 12.03 ± 1.63h | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0.32 ± 0.29de | 9.29 ± 2.30d | 15.10 ± 1.61e | 22.31 ± 2.59f | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 0g | 4.03 ± 1.42h | 13.34 ± 2.07h | ||
| Chromolaena odorata | Hexane | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0i | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0i | ||
| Methanol | 2.48 ± 2.01de | 9.17 ± 1.75d | 22.55 ± 1.54d | 33.73 ± 1.88d | ||
| Azadirachtin (10 ppm) | 86.29 ± 1.09 | |||||
| Temephos (10 ppm) | 10.27 ± 1.75 | |||||
Data are mean ± standard deviation (SD). Means are separated by Tukey's test of multiple comparisons, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
p ≤ 0.5, level of significance.
ppm = parts per million.
Results with same letters in the column are not significantly different.
Table 4.
Percent oviposition deterrent activity of crude extracts against Aedes aegypti adult females.
| Mosquito species | Plant | Treatment | Concentration (ppm) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62.5 | 125 | 250 | 500 | |||
| Aedes aegypti | Aegle marmelos | Hexane | 21.02 ± 2.11b | 45.14 ± 1.69b | 52.60 ± 1.77b | 71.79 ± 1.57b |
| Ethyl acetate | 3.04 ± 1.54d | 7.20 ± 1.63d | 13.56 ± 2.21e | 31.22 ± 1.63d | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 0g | 3.15 ± 1.62hi | 13.01 ± 1.56g | ||
| Limonia acidissima | Hexane | 100a | 100a | 100a | 100a | |
| Ethyl acetate | 1.20 ± 0.47de | 6.44 ± 1.47de | 18.06 ± 1.23d | 27.71 ± 1.48e | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 1.84 ± 0.88fg | 5.87 ± 2.46gh | 10.88 ± 2.63gh | ||
| Sphaeranthus indicus | Hexane | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0k | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0e | 0g | 2.59 ± 1.85i | 4.34 ± 2.59i | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0k | ||
| Sphaeranthus amaranthaides | Hexane | 2.27 ± 1.59de | 3.90 ± 2.29ef | 6.65 ± 1.79g | 8.74 ± 1.68h | |
| Ethyl acetate | 2.07 ± 1.69de | 4.14 ± 0.83ef | 10.27 ± 1.75f | 20.48 ± 0.83f | ||
| Methanol | 0e | 0g | 0i | 2.61 ± 1.13ij | ||
| Chromolaena odorata | Hexane | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0k | |
| Ethyl acetate | 0e | 0g | 0i | 0k | ||
| Methanol | 9.93 ± 2.15c | 15.41 ± 2.39c | 25.53 ± 0.86c | 38.23 ± 1.73c | ||
| Azadirachtin (10 ppm) | 75.21 ± 0.86 | |||||
| Temephos (10 ppm) | 4.05 ± 1.36 | |||||
Data are the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Means are separated by Tukey's test of multiple comparisons, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). p ≤ 0.5, level of significance.
ppm = parts per million.
Results with same letters in the column are not significantly different.
4. Discussion
Over the past 5 decades, synthetic pesticides have been indiscriminately used against vector mosquitoes. As a result, side effects such as environmental pollution and toxic hazards to humans and other nontarget organisms were created. These side effects of synthetic chemicals created awareness of the need for ecofriendly and target-specific pesticides for mosquito control [29,30]. It is clearly proven that plant extracts and plant compounds are ecofriendly, target-specific, less expensive, and highly efficacious pesticides for the control of vector mosquitoes [31,32].
In the present study, the hexane extract of L. acidissima recorded the highest ovicidal activity of 79.2% and 60% at 500 ppm concentration against the eggs of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti, respectively. Previously, some investigators studied the ovicidal activity of plant extracts against mosquito eggs. Elango et al [27] reported that Cocculus hirsutus methanol extract caused 86% and 100% ovicidal activity at 500 ppm and 1000 ppm, respectively against An. subpictus. In another study, 100% ovicidal activity was recorded by a methanol extract of Andrographis paniculata at 150 ppm concentration in An. stephensi eggs [33].
Furthermore, the same hexane extract of L. acidissima showed 100% oviposition deterrent activity at all the tested concentrations (62.5–500 ppm) against Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti adult females. Previously, some investigators reported the oviposition deterrent effect of plant extracts against vector mosquitoes. Coria et al [34] reported 100% oviposition deterrent effect obtained with Melia azedarach L. leaf extract at 1 g/L concentration against Ae. aegypti. Autran et al [35] recorded the oviposition deterrent effect of essential oil obtained from leaves, inflorescence, and stem of Piper marginatum Jacq. Their results showed that essential oil of leaves and stems of P. marginatum exhibited oviposition deterrent effect on Ae. aegypti females at 50 ppm and 100 ppm concentration and that the number of eggs laid was significantly lower (<50%) compared to control. Similarly, Prajapati et al [36] reported that the bark oil of Cinnamomum zeylanicum reduced the oviposition of Ae. aegypti to 50% at 33.5 ppm concentration.
In conclusion, the hexane extract of L. acidissima was the most potent treatment against the two tested mosquito vectors. Based on these results, the hexane extract of L. acidissima could be used in vector mosquito control and may be further probed to isolate the active constituent responsible for the bioactivities.
Conflicts of interest
The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the Entomology Research Institute for financial assistance. The authors would like to thank Mr. S. Mutheeswaran, Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Chennai, India for his help in identifying plant materials.
Footnotes
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
- 1.Aregawi M., Cibulskis R., Otten M. WHO; Geneva: 2008. World malaria report; p. 190. [Google Scholar]
- 2.World Health Organization . WHO; Geneva: 1996. Report of the WHO Informal Consultation on the “Evaluation and Testing of Insecticides.”; p. 69. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rahuman A.A., Bagavan A., Kamaraj C. Efficacy of the larvicidal botanical extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Dipetera: Culicidae) Parasitol Res. 2009 Jun;104(6):1365–1372. doi: 10.1007/s00436-009-1337-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Borah R., Kalita M.C., Kar A. Larvicidal efficacy of Toddalia asiatica (Linn.) Lam against two mosquito vector Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. Afr J Biotechnol. 2010 Apr;9(16):2527–2530. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Peng Z., Yang J., Wang H. Production and characterization of monoclonal antibodies to two new mosquitoes Aedes aegypti salivary proteins. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 1999 Oct;29(10):909–914. doi: 10.1016/s0965-1748(99)00066-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Karunamoorthy K., Ilango K., Murugan K. Laboratory evaluation of traditionally used plant-based insect repellents against the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis Patton. Parasitol Res. 2010 Apr;106(5):1217–1223. doi: 10.1007/s00436-010-1797-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Akram D.S., Ahmed S. Dengue fever. Infect Dis J. 2005;14:124–125. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hendarto S.K., Hadinegoro S.R. Dengue encephalopathy. Acta Paediatr Jap. 1992 Jun;34(3):350–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-200x.1992.tb00971.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Pancharoen C., Kulwichit W., Tantawichien T. Dengue infection: a global concern. J Med Assoc Thai. 2002 Jun;85(Suppl. 1):S25–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Holder P. The mosquitoes of New Zealand and their animal disease significance. Surveillance. 1999;26(4):12–15. [Google Scholar]
- 11.World Health Organization . WHO; Geneva: 1984. Lymphatic filariasis; p. 702. WHO Technical Report Series. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.National Institute of Communicable Diseases . NICD; New Delhi: 1990. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Operation Research on Vector Control in Filariasis. [Google Scholar]
- 13.World Health Organization . WHO; Geneva: 1992. Lymphatic filariasis. The disease and its control; p. 821. WHO Technical Report Series. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Wattanachai P., Tintanon B. Resistance of Aedes aegypti to chemical compounds in aerosol insecticide products in different areas of Bangkok, Thailand. Commun Dis J. 1999 Jun;25(2):188–191. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Liu H., Xu Q., Zhang L. Chlorpyrifos resistance mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus. J Med Entomol. 2005 Sep;42(5):815–820. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/42.5.815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Amer A., Mehlhorn H. Larvicidal effects of various essential oils against Aedes, Anopheles and Culex larvae (Diptera, Culicidae) Parasitol Res. 2006 Sep;99(4):466–472. doi: 10.1007/s00436-006-0182-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Amer A., Mehlhorn H. Repellency effect of forty-one essential oils against Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex mosquitoes. Parasitol Res. 2006 Sep;99(4):478–490. doi: 10.1007/s00436-006-0184-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Perrucci S., Cioni P.L., Cascella A. Therapeutic efficacy of linalool for the topical treatment of parasitic otitis caused by Psoroptescuniculi in the rabbit and in the goat. Med Vet Entomol. 1997 Jul;11(3):300–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1997.tb00411.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Roth G.N., Chandra A., Nair M.G. Novel bioactivities of Curcuma longa constituents. J Nat Prod. 1998 Apr;61(4):542–545. doi: 10.1021/np970459f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Momin R.A., Nair M.G. Pest-managing efficacy of trans-asarone isolated from Daucuscarota L seeds. J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Jul;50(16):4475–4478. doi: 10.1021/jf020209r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mohan L., Sharma P., Srivastava C.N. Evaluation of Solanum xanthocarpum extracts as mosquito larvicides. J Environ Biol. 2005 Jun;26(Suppl. 2):399–401. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Souza T.M., Farias D.F., Soares B.M. Toxicity of Brazilian plant seed extracts to two strains of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and non-target animals. J Med Entomol. 2011 Jul;48(4):846–851. doi: 10.1603/me10205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Govindarajan M., Jebanesan A., Pushpanathan T. Larvicidal and ovicidal activity of Cassia fistula Linn. leaf extract against filarial and malarial vector mosquitoes. Parasitol Res. 2008 Jan;102(2):289–292. doi: 10.1007/s00436-007-0761-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Markouk M., Bekkouche K., Larhsini M. Evaluation of some Moroccan medicinal plant extracts for larvicidal activity. J Ethnophar. 2000 Nov;73(1-2):293–297. doi: 10.1016/s0378-8741(00)00257-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.David M., Anstrom Xia Z., Cody N. Mosquitocidal properties of natural product compounds isolated from Chinese herbs and synthetic analogs of curcumin. J Med Entomol. 2012 Mar;49(2):350–355. doi: 10.1603/me11117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Reegan A.D., Kinsalin A.V., Paulraj M.G. Larvicidal, ovicidal, and repellent activities of marine sponge Cliona celata (Grant) extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus Say and Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae) ISRN Entomology. 2013 Oct:1–8. doi: 10.1016/S1995-7645(14)60183-8. Article ID 315389, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/315389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Elango G., Bagavan A., Kamaraj C. Oviposition-deterrent, ovicidal, and repellent activities of indigenous plant extracts against Anopheles subpictus Grassi (Diptera: Culicidae) Parasitol Res. 2009 Nov;105(6):1567–1576. doi: 10.1007/s00436-009-1593-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Rajkumar S., Jenanesan A. Oviposition attractancy of Solunum aeriathum D. Don. leaf extract for Culex quinquefasciatus Say. J Exp Zoology India. 2002;5:221–224. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Nivsarkar M., Cherian B., Padh H. Alpha-terthienyl. A plant derived new generation insecticide. Curr Sci. 2001 Sep;81(6):667–672. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Muthu C., Reegan A.D., Kingsley S. Larvicidal activity of pectolinaringenin from Clerodendrum phlomidis L. against Culex quinquefasciatus Say and Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae) Parasitol Res. 2012 Sep;111(3):1059–1065. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-2932-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Jang Y.S., Kim M.K., Ahn Y.J. Larvicidal activity of Brazilian plants against Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens Pallens (Diptera: Culicidae) Agric Chem Biotechnol. 2002 Jun;44:23–26. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cavalcanti E.S.B., de Morais S.M., Ashley A.L.M. Larvicidal activity of essential oils from brazilian plants against Aedes aegypti L. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. 2004 Aug;99(5):541–544. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762004000500015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Panneerselvam C., Murugan K. Adulticidal, repellent, and ovicidal properties of indigenous plant extracts against the malarial vector, Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) Parasitol Res. 2013 Feb;112(2):679–692. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-3185-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Coria C., Almiron W., Valladares G. Larvicide and oviposition deterrent effects of fruit and leaf extracts from Melia azedarach L. on Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) Bioresour Tech. 2008 May;99(8):3066–3070. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Autran E.S., Neves I.A., da Silva C.S. Chemical composition, oviposition deterrent and larvicidal activities against Aedes aegypti of essential oils from Piper marginatum Jacq. (Piperaceae) Bioresour Tech. 2009 Apr;100(7):2284–2288. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Prajapati V., Tripathi A.K., Aggarwal K.K. Insecticidal, repellent and oviposition-deterrent activity of selected essential oils against Anopheles stephensi, Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. Biores Technol. 2005 Nov;96(16):1749–1757. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]