Indexing

Assessment of Mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus Larvivorous Prospective of the fish Poecilia reticulata and Gambusia affinis

Author: S.R. Karlekar* and R.J. Andrew**

PDF Download PDF

Abstract

The fishes Poecilia reticulate and Gambusia affinis of size measuring 4 ± 0.5 cm in length were evaluated for mosquito larvivorous prospective against third instar larva of Culex quinquefasciatus. The experiment was carried out with five replicates without supplementary food. The results shown that Poecilia reticulata consumed maximum 31 and minimum 25 larvae, at an average of 27± 2.54 larvae per day, while the fish Gambusia affinis consumed a maximum of 44 and minimum 38 larvae at an average of 41± 2.82 per day. The post twenty four hours exposure shown that Poecilia reticulata consumed maximum 35 and minimum 28 larvae, at an average of 31± 2.91 larvae, while the fish Gambusia affinis consumed a maximum of 48 and minimum 40 larvae at an average of 43±3.16.

Keywords

Poecilia reticulata, Gambusia affinis, Culex quinquefasciatus, larvae.

Conclusion

The fishes Poecilia reticulate and Gambusia affinis of size measuring 4 ± 0.5 cm in length were evaluated for mosquito larvivorous prospective against third instar larva of Culex quinquefasciatus. The experiment was carried out with five replicates without supplementary food. The results shown that Poecilia reticulata consumed maximum 31 and minimum 25 larvae, at an average of 27± 2.54 larvae per day, while the fish Gambusia affinis consumed a maximum of 44 and minimum 38 larvae at an average of 41± 2.82 per day. The post twenty four hours exposure shown that Poecilia reticulata consumed maximum 35 and minimum 28 larvae, at an average of 31± 2.91 larvae, while the fish Gambusia affinis consumed a maximum of 48 and minimum 40 larvae at an average of 43±3.16.

References

-

How to cite this article

S.R. Karlekar and R.J. Andrew (2016). Assessment of Mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus Larvivorous Prospective of the fish Poecilia reticulata and Gambusia affinis , Biological Forum – An International Journal 8(2): 326-329.