Assessment of biorational larvicides and botanical oils against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae in laboratory conditions.

Mosquitoes are known vectors that transmit deadly diseases to millions of people across the globe. The reliance on synthetic insecticides has been the sole way to combat mosquito vectors for decades. In recent years, the extensive use of conventional insecticides in mosquito suppression has led to significant pesticide resistance and serious human health hazards. In this light, investigating the potential application of biorational compounds for vector management has drawn significant attention. We, hereby, evaluated the efficacy of three microbial derivative biorational insecticides, abamectin, spinosad, and buprofezin, and two botanical oils, neem ( Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and karanja oil ( Pongamia pinnata Linn.) against the Culex quinquefasciatus under laboratory conditions. The fourth-instar C. quinquefasciatus larvae were exposed to different concentrations of the selected larvicides and lethality was estimated based on LC ₅₀ and LT ₅₀ with Probit analysis. All larvicides showed concentration-dependent significant effects on survival and demonstrated larvicidal activity against C. quinquefasciatus larvae. However, abamectin exerted the highest toxicity (LC ₅₀  = 10.36 ppm), exhibited statistically significant effects on C. quinquefasciatus larval mortality, followed by spinosad (LC ₅₀  = 21.32 ppm) and buprofezin (LC ₅₀  = 56.34 ppm). Abamectin caused larval mortality ranged from 30.00 to 53.33 % and 53.00-70.00 % at 06 and 07 h after treatment (HAT), respectively. In the case of botanicals, karanja oil (LC ₅₀  = 216.61 ppm) was more lethal (more than 1.5 times) and had a shorter lethal time than neem oil (LC ₅₀  = 330.93 ppm) and showed a classic pattern of relationship between concentrations and mortality over time. Overall, the present study highlighted the potential of deploying new generation biorational pesticides and botanicals in mosquito vector control programs.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(© 2024 The Authors.)