Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T11:55:38.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory studies on oviposition behaviour of Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae): choice of oviposition medium and oviposition cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. Suleman  and
M. Shirin
M. Suleman
Affiliation:
Entomology Division, Zoology Department, University of Peshawar, Pakistan
M. Shirin
Affiliation:
Entomology Division, Zoology Department, University of Peshawar, Pakistan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The preference of Culex quinquefasciatus Say for oviposition in rearing water (in which larvae and pupae of the same species had been reared), pond water, tap water (from a well) deionised water and food water (in which larval food was mixed) was tested in a 5 × 5 Latin square. Most oviposition occurred in rearing water, followed in decreasing order by pond water, tap water, deionised water and food water, the differences being significant except between pond water and tap water. Diel oviposition activity of females from wild-caught pupae was studied under tropical normal (light-day) photoperiod (LD 12:12), reversed (dark-day) photoperiod (DL 12:12) and continuous light (LL) for at least three consecutive days at average conditions of 29·3°C and 91% RH. Under conditions of alternate light and dark periods (normal as well as reversed), there was a circadian rhythm, which was unimodal, confined to the scotophase and concentrated in the first half of the scotophase. Under continuous light, activity was greatly depressed, with disturbances both in circadian rhythm and unimodality. It is concluded that the circadian rhythm of oviposition activity of C. quinquefasciatus is predominantly exogenous in nature and regulated mainly by photoperiod, activity being stimulated by darkness and inhibited by light.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , September 1981 , pp. 361 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adham, F. K. (1979). Studies on laboratory oviposition behaviour of Aedes caspius (Diptera: Culicidae).—Acta Entomol. Bohemoslav. 76, 99–103.Google Scholar
Andreadis, T. G. (1977). An oviposition attractant of pupal origin in Culex salinarius.— Mosquito News 37, 53–56.Google Scholar
Beck, S. D. (1968). Insect photoperiodism.—288 pp. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davis, E. E. (1976). A receptor sensitive to oviposition site attractants on the antennae of the mosquito, Aedes aegypti.—J. Insect Physiol. 22, 1371–1376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Meillon, B., Sebastian, A. & Khan, Z. H. (1967). Time of arrival of gravid Culex pipiens fatigans at an oviposition site, the oviposition cycle and the relationship between time of feeding and time of oviposition.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 36, 39–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1943). Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research.—98 pp. London, Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Gillett, J. D. (1956). Initiation and promotion of ovarian development in the mosquito Aëdes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus).—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 50, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillett, J. D. & Haddow, A. J. (1957). Laboratory observations on the oviposition-cycle in the mosquito Aëdes (Stegomyia) africanus Theobald.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 51, 170–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, J. D., Haddow, A. J. & Corbet, P. S. (1959). Observations on the oviposition-cycle of Aëdes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus).—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 53, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddow, A. J., Corbet, P. S. & Gillett, J. D. (1960). Laboratory observations on the oviposition-cycle in the mosquito Aëdes (Stegomyia) apicoargenteus Theobald.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 54, 392–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddow, A. J. & Gillett, J. D. (1957). Observations on the oviposition-cycle of Aëdes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus).—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 51, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddow, A. J. & Gillett, I. D. (1958). Laboratory observations on the oviposition-cycle in the mosquito Taeniorhynchus (Coquillettidia) fuscopennatus Theobald.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 52, 320–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazard, E. I., Turner, R. B. & Lofgren, C. S. (1967). Mosquito growth stimulating substances associated with infusions.—J. Med. Entomol. 4, 455–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hwang, Y. S., Kramer, W. L. & Mulla, M. S. (1978). Chemical characterization of mosquito oviposition attractants and repellents.—pp. 75–76in Grant, C. D. (Ed.). Proceedings and Papers of the Forty-sixth Annual Conference of the California Mosquito & Vector Control Association, Inc. January 29-February 1, 1978, held at the Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite, California.—137 pp. Visalia, California, USA; CMVCA Press.Google Scholar
Ikeshoji, T. (1966). Studies on mosquito attractants and stimulants. Part I. Chemical factors determining the choice of oviposition site by Culex pipiens fatigans and pallens.— Jap. J. exp. Med. 36, 49–59.Google Scholar
Ikeshoji, T., Umino, T. & Hirakaso, S. (1967). Studies on mosquito attractants and stimulants. Part IV. An agent producing stimulative effects for oviposition of Culex pipiens fatigans in field water and the stimulative effects of various chemicals.—Jap. J. exp. Med. 37, 61–69.Google Scholar
Jones, M. D. R. (1976). Persistence in continuous light of a circadian rhythm in the mosquito Culex pipiens fatigans Wied.—Nature, Lond. 261, 491–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaul, H. N., Wattal, B. L. & Singha, P. (1977). Chemical characteristics of Culex pipiens fatigans breeding waters in areas around Delhi.—J. Commun. Dis. 9, 8–21.Google Scholar
Leahy, M. G., VandeHey, R. C. & Booth, K. S. (1978). Differential response to oviposition site by feral and domestic populations of Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae).— Bull. ent. Res. 68, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, I. N., Bentley, M. D., Lee, H. P. & Yatagai, M. (1976). Effects of color and larval-produced oviposition attractants on oviposition of Aedes triseriatus.—Environ. Entomol. 5, 553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, I. N., Bentley, M. D., Lee, H. P. & Yatagai, M. (1979). Studies of Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) oviposition attractants. Evidence for attractant production by kaolin-treated larvae.—Can. Ent. 111, 143–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, H. (1978). Oviposition preference of Culex pipiens molestus and C. tritaeniorhynchus summorosus onto the waters conditioned by the egg rafts or the larvae [in Japanese with English summary].—Jap. J. sanit. Zool. 29, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisen, W. K. & Siddiqi, T. F. (1978). The influence of conspecific immatures on the oviposition preferences of the mosquitoes Anopheles stephensi and Culex tritaeniorhynchus —Pakistan J. Zool. 10, 31–41.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. R. & Hsi, B. P. (1977). A method of evaluating ovipositional attractants of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae), with preliminary results.—J. Med. Entomol. 14, 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, V. P. (1976). Further observation on the physico-chemical factors of the breeding places of Culex quinquefasciatus Say = fatigans Wied.—Mosquito News 36, 358–360.Google Scholar
Suleman, M. & Reisen, W. K. (1979). Culex quinquefasciatus Say: life table characteristics of adults reared from wild-caught pupae from North West Frontier Province, Pakistan. —Mosquito News 39, 756–762.Google Scholar
Trimle, R. M. (1979). Laboratory observations on oviposition by the predacous tree-hole mosquito, Toxorhynchites rutilus septentrionalis (Diptera: Culicidae).—Can. J Zool. 57, 1104–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, R. C. (1954). A study of oviposition activity of mosquitoes.—Am. J. Hyg. 60, 135–168.Google ScholarPubMed