Review Article

Indian J Med Res 127, January 2008, pp 13-27

Mosquito control by larvivorous fish

G. Chandra , I. Bhattacharjee, S.N. Chatterjee & A. Ghosh

Department of Zoology, University of Burdwan, Burdwan, India

Received June 8, 2006

There is growing of the effects of insecticide used controlling the vectors of human diseases.
Manipulating or introducing an auto-reproducing predator into the ecosystem may provide sustained
biological control of pest populations. The selection of a biological agent should be based on its self-
replicating capacity, preference for the target pest population in the presence of alternate natural
prey, adaptability to the introduced environment, and overall interaction with indigenous organisms.
In order to achieve an acceptable range of control, a sound knowledge of various attributes of
interactions between the pest population and the predator to be introduced is desirable. Biological
larviciding for the control of mosquito borne diseases is feasible and effective only when breeding
sites are relatively few or are easily identified and treated. Larval control appears to be promising
in urban areas, given that the density of humans needing protection is higher than the limited number
of breeding sites. Since 1937, fish have been employed for controlling mosquito larvae. Different
types of fish have been used so far in this operational technique. However, use of fish of indigenous
origin is found to be more appropriate in this operation. This review presents information on different
larvivorous fish species and the present status of their use in mosquito control and provides a ready
reference for workers involved and interested in mosquito research.

Key words Biocontrol agents - larvivorous fish - mosquito control

Mosquito borne diseases continue to be a major
problem in almost all tropical and subtropical countries.
They are responsible for the transmission of the
pathogens causing some of the most life - threatening
and debilitating diseases of man, like malaria, yellow
fever, dengue fever, chikungunya, filariasis,
encephalitis, etc.
Environmental protection agencies have banned or
placed severe restrictions on the use of many pesticides,
which were formerly used in mosquito control
programmes, and there are now fewer adulticides
available than there have been for the last 20 yr1. Further,
manufacturers themselves have withdrawn some
insecticides due to the high cost of carrying out the
additional tests now as per the government norms, in
addition to the fact that the production of crop pesticides
for the agricultural market is much more lucrative1. The
harmful effects of chemicals in mosquitoes as well as
on non-target populations, and the development of
resistance to these chemicals in mosquitoes along with
recent resurgence of different mosquito borne diseases2
have prompted us to explore simple sustainable methods

13
14 INDIAN J MED RES, JANUARY 2008
of mosquito control. The eradication of mosquito using
adulticides is not a prudent strategy, as the adult stage
occurs along side human habitation, and they can easily
escape remedial measures3,4.
Biological control, particularly using larvivorous
fish, was important to malaria control programmes in
the 20th century, particularly in urban and periurban
areas for immediate use in developed and developing
countries5. It has a very positive role to play in the
integrated control methodologies in which both
pesticides and fish or other biotic agents have their own
roles6. Biological control refers to the introduction or
manipulation of organisms to suppress vector
populations. A wide range of organisms helps to regulate
mosquito populations naturally through predation,
parasitism and competition. As biological mosquito
control agents, larvivorous fish (i.e., those that feed on
immature stages of mosquitoes) are being used
extensively all over the world since the early 1900s (pre
DDT era) 7. During the pre DDT era, control of
mosquitoes and mosquito vectors of different mosquito
borne diseases was undertaken mainly by environmental
management, pyrethrum space spraying, use of Paris
green, oiling with petrol products and introduction of
larvivorous fish. Recognizing the high larvivorous
potential of Gambusia affinis, this fish species was
purposely introduced from its native Texas (Southern
USA) to the Hawaiin Islands in 1905. In 1921, it was
introduced in Spain; then from there in Italy during
1920s and later to 60 other countries8. Beginning in
1908, another larvivorous fish, Poecilia reticulata, a
native of South America, was introduced for malaria
control into British India and many other countries 8.
The introduction of the use of DDT in indoor residual
spraying for malaria control around the mid - 1940s led
to the gradual decline in the use of concepts of
environmental management and biological control
methods, except in a few programmes in Russia. In the
fifties, attention was directed to eradicate mosquitoes
using synthetic insecticides until insecticide resistance
began to assume prominence. In 1969, the WHO
changed its strategy of malaria eradication by spraying
houses with synthetic insecticides in favour of the more
realistic one for the control of mosquito populations in
the larval stages (post DDT era)7.
The selection of biological control agents should
be based on their potential for unintended impacts, self-
replicating capacity, climatic compatibility, and their
capability to maintain very close interactions with target
prey populations9. They eliminate certain prey and
sustain in such environments (i.e., they eat the prey,
when introduced) for long periods thereafter10. However,
this will only be possible if the predator possesses
extraordinary search efficiency irrespective of the
illuminated situation in response to the emergence of
prey. It is important to have a sound knowledge of
predator’s prey selective patterns and particularly of
its mosquito larval selection in the presence of alternate
natural prey11,12. In addition, the predator’s adaptability
to the introduced environment and overall interaction
with indigenous organisms need to be considered prior
to introduction13,14. This review presents a brief account
of larvivorous fish as mosquito control agents and
possible prey/predator interactions in aquatic
ecosystems.
Definition and criteria for species selection
Larvivorous fish are those that feed on immature
stages of mosquitoes. According to Job15, larvivorous
fish must be small, hardy and capable of getting about
easily in shallow waters among thick weeds where
mosquitoes find suitable breeding grounds. They must
be drought resistant and capable of flourishing in both
deep and shallow waters as well as living in drinking
water tanks and pools without contaminating the water.
They must have the ability to withstand rough handling
and transportation for long distances. Larvivorous fish
must be prolific breeders having shorter span of life
cycle. They must breed freely and successfully in
confined waters. Larvivorous fish should be surface
feeders and carnivorous in habit and should have a
predilection for mosquito larvae even in the presence
of other food materials. Another important criterion of
all larvivorous species should be its appearance. They
should not be brightly coloured or attractive. They
should be compatible with the existing fish life in that
environment. Above all, they should have no food value,
so that the fish-eating people discard them.
It is difficult to find a species that satisfies all the
above parameters. Hence, the choice usually depends
upon those, which satisfy as many of the above qualities
as possible.
Categorization of larvivorous fish
The position of mouth is one of the important
characteristics to determine the larvivorous capability
of a fish. From the point of view of their efficacy in
controlling mosquito larvae, Hora & Mukherjee16
classified the larvivorous fish into the following
categories: (i) Typical surface feeders such as
 CHANDRA et al: MOSQUITO CONTROL BY FISH 15

Aplochelius and Gambusia, which fulfill the Cisterns - A. dispar effectively suppressed the
characteristic features of larvivorous fish; (ii) Some breeding of An. arabiensis and An. gambiae breeding
surface feeders, which are less efficient owing to their in cisterns when the experiment was conducted in an
mode of life, e.g., Oryzias, Lebistes (Poecilia), Aphanius, urban area in Djibouti19.
etc.; (iii) Sub-surface feeders like Amblypharyngodon
Barrels and containers - A. dispar effectively reduced
mola, Danio, Rasbora, etc.; (iv) Column feeders like
the breeding of An. arabiensis and An. gambiae breeding
Puntius spp., Colisa, Chanda, Anabas, etc., which feed
in barrels and containers by 97 per cent throughout the
on mosquito larvae when chance permits; (v) Fry of carps
experiment in an urban area in Djibouti19. Fletcher et al20
and mullets, which are helpful in controlling mosquito
who reported that in an urban area in Ethiopia, the
larvae; (vi) Predatory fishes like Wallago, Channa,
indigenous fish, A. dispar, effectively suppressed An.
Notopterus and Mystus whose fry may destroy mosquito
culicifacies adanensis breeding in containers. However,
larvae but whose adults may predate upon other fish
its impact on malaria transmission could not be assessed.
including larvicidal fish species.
2. Aplocheilus (McClelland), 1839
Potential indigenous larvivorous fishes as biocontrol
agents (i) Aplocheilus blockii (Arnold), 1911 (Common name:
Dwarf panchax)
1. Aphanius dispar (Ruppell), 1828 (Common name:
Dispar topminnow) Size: Approximately 9 cm (3.6 inches).
Size: Approximately 7.5 cm (3 inches). Distribution: East Coast of India, from Madras
northwards as far as the Pennar system in Andhra
Distribution: India, Kutch; Pakistan; Sind; Ethiopia:
Pradesh.
Palestine, along the shores of the Red sea.
Ecology: The fish is a strictly fresh water form and
Ecology: A. dispar is a good larvivorous fish and thrives
inhabits stationary and sheltered waters of tanks, small
both in fresh and brackish waters where it breeds freely.
streams and rivulets overgrown with thick vegetation.
It is a delicate species and does not stand transport well.
Suitable for ponds and impounded water bodies where
It is suitable for drains and polluted water bodies and
carnivorous fish are present, wells and abounded water
useful for stagnant water bodies, disused wells,
bodies. Also useful for introduction in overhead tanks,
cesspools, etc.
ornamental pools, streambeds and margins, reservoirs
Field trials: and wells for malaria disease vector control.
Natural habitats - Shallow channels: In 1981, Ataur- Field trials:
Rahim17 reported the natural occurrence of A. dispar in
Natural habitats - Studies conducted by Kumar
shallow channels near Riyadh where it was reported to
et al21 showed that predation by A. blockii reduced the
successfully control mosquito larvae. Fish were applied
larval population of An. stephensi by 75 per cent along
at about 3 fish per square meter water surface.
the coastal belt of Goa.
Man made habitats - Experiments using A. dispar
Man made habitats - A.blockii is a potential
in man made artificial containers have shown successful
larvivorous fish controlling the spread of chikungunya
results. It has been reported that A.dispar is a suggested
fever by controlling Aedes albopictus Skuse 1894. The
larvivorous fish for the control of vectors of Bancroftian
experiment was conducted in tanks and bigger cisterns
filariasis namely Culex quinquefasciatus Say, 1823 in
and barrels18.
any kind of stagnant water containing organic
pollution18. (ii) Aplocheilus lineatus (Valenciennes), 1846
(Common name: Malabar killie)
Wells - Louis & Albert19 reported that in an urban
area in Djibouti, the indigenous fish, A. dispar, Size: 10 cm (4 inches).
effectively suppressed the breeding of Anopheles
Distribution: Widely distributed in Peninsular India and
arabiensis and An. gambiae breeding in wells, cisterns
Sri Lanka.
and barrels and containers by 97 per cent. Further
Fletcher et al20 reported that in an urban area in Ethiopia, Ecology: Common in tanks, paddy fields, canals, and
the indigenous fish, A. dispar, effectively suppressed even in tidal waters. It is suitable for fishponds where
An. culicifacies adanensis breeding in wells. carnivorous food fish are present and useful for
16 INDIAN J MED RES, JANUARY 2008
introduction in overhead tanks, artificial containers,
cisterns and fountains to control urban malaria, and in
pools, streambeds, margins and marshes in rural areas.
Field trials:
Man made habitats - A.lineatus is a potential
biocontrol agent. It was reported to control dengue fever
vector namely Ae. aegypti Linnaeus, 1762. The
experiments were conducted in the breeding habitats
of the vector, which included water storage tanks,
cistern, and barrels17.
(iii) Aplocheilus panchax (Hamilton-Buchanan),
1822 (Common name: Panchax minnow)
Size: Approximately 9 cm (3.5 inches); the average size
in Bengal is about 5 cm (2 inches).
Distribution: India: Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Assam,
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan; Sri
Lanka; Malaya; Burma (now Myanmar); Thailand; and
Indonesia.
Ecology: The species is quite hardy and active and
inhabits clear shallow fresh and brackish water at low
altitudes. Suitable for water bodies where carnivorous
fish occur; also wells, marshes, lagoons and polluted
storm water drains and any other stagnant water bodies
containing organic pollution for filariasis vector control.
Field trials:
A. panchax is a potential larvivorous fish in
controlling several vector species in different types of
natural and man-made habitats 18. It controlled An.
culicifacies in breeding habitats like rain water pools,
irrigation channels, sluggish streams with sandy margins
and little vegetation, river bed pools, borrow pits,
cemented tanks, swimming pools, freshly laid rice fields
etc. An. sundaicus was controlled in brackish waters with
algae, behind embankments protecting rice fields, tanks,
cleared mangroves and lagoons, ponds, lakes and borrow
pits in coastal areas. A. panchax also controlled Cx.
quinquefasciatus in cesspools, drains, chocked severs,
storm water drains, ponds, polluted waterways, septic
tanks, disused wells, well, manure pits etc., and Cx.
vishnui in rice fields, marshes, ponds, pools, streams,
ditches, borrow pits, irrigation channels, field wells etc.
3. Colisa (Cuvier), 1831
(i) Colisa fasciatus (Schneider), 1801 (Common name:
Giant gourami)
Size: Approximately 12.5 cm (5 inches).
Distribution: Assam and Upper Burma (now Myanmar)
to Punjab and North West Frontier Provinces (Pakistan)
and throughout peninsular India.
Ecology: Fresh water rivers, lakes and estuaries
generally preferring weedy environment. It is suitable
for brackish waters, backwaters and lagoons and
especially in lakes, swamps, ponds, etc., with
overgrowth of aquatic plants.
Laboratory trials:
C. fasciatus, a locally available indigenous fish
collected from stone quarries of Shankargarh block of
Allahabad district and ponds/ pools of Dadraul block
of Shahjahanpur district (U.P.)22 was evaluated for
control of mosquito breeding. The number of larvae
consumed per day by a fish of an average length of 5.3
cm collected from stone quarries ranged from 86 to 96.
However, larval consumption rate of a fish of an average
length of 5.9 cm collected from ponds/pools was 85 to
101. No significant difference was observed in the
number of larvae consumed with and without fish food
throughout the study period.
Field trials:
It has been reported that C. fasciatus controls
vectors of brugian filariasis and malaria namely
Mansonioides indiana Edwards, 1930 and Anopheles
(C.) annularis Van der Wulp, 1884 respectively18.
Man made habitats:
Wells - Field trials carried out in the wells of
Dadraul PHC22 revealed that experimental wells with
50 and 75 larvivorous fish did not attain negativity even
after three weeks of fish introduction. However, wells
with 100 larvivorous fish become negative in one to
two weeks of fish introduction. The negativity persisted
for 4 months, suggesting that C. fasciatus can be used
for controlling mosquito breeding in wells if introduced
in sufficient numbers22.
(ii) Colisa lalia (Hamilton-Buchanan), 1822
(Common name: Dwarf gourami)
Size: Approximately 5 cm (2 inches).
Distribution: Northern India, Assam, Bengal, Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh.
Ecology: It inhabits slow moving streams, rivulets and
lakes with plenty of vegetation. Suitable for water
bodies where carnivorous food fish are present. Useful
for lakes, tanks, etc.
 CHANDRA et al: MOSQUITO CONTROL BY FISH
Field trials:
Natural habitats - C. lalia is a good biocontrol
agent. It has been reported to control An. (C.) annularis
Van der Wulp, 1884 thereby preventing the spread of
malaria to a considerable extent. Breeding habitat of
the vector include clear weed grown stagnant waters,
margins of lakes, tanks, dead rivers, borrow pits, and
rice field18.
(iii) Colisa sota (Hamilton-Buchanan), 1822
(Common name: Sunset gourami)
Size: Approximately 4 cm (1.5 inches).
Distribution: Northern India, Assam, Bihar, Bengal and
Uttar Pradesh.
Ecology: In fresh water rivers and lakes living amidst
water plants for protection. Suitable for fresh water
bodies where carnivorous food fish are also present.
Also useful for introduction in clearweed grown
stagnant waters for malaria vector control.
Field trials:
Natural habitats - C. sota is also a potent biocontrol
agent with natural habitats similar to C. lalia18.
4. Chanda nama (Hamilton-Buchanan), 1822
(Common name: Elongate glass perchlet)
Size: Approximately 7.6 cm (3 inches).
Distribution: India, Bangladesh and Burma (now
Myanmar).
Ecology: Widely distributed in fresh waters with thick
vegetation and breeds freely in confined waters as well
as rivers. The species is useful as a larvicidal fish for
introduction into forest pools, streams, tanks, ditches,
etc., overgrown with vegetation for control of malarial
vector.
Field trials:
Natural habitats - C. nama has been reported to
control the population of An. (C.) culicifacies Giles, 1901;
An. (C.) balabacensis balabacensis Baisas, 1926; and
An. (C.) varuna Iyengar, 1924, which, in turn are potent
malarial vectors inhabiting slow moving fresh water17.
5. Oryzias melastigma (McClelland), 1839 (Common
name: Estuarine ricefish)
Size: 4 cm (1.5 inches).
Distribution: Widely distributed in Bengal, Orissa and
Tamil Nadu.
17
Ecology: It is a carnivorous, surface feeder found in
both still and running waters. Though primarily as
estuarine and brackish water fish, it is found inhabiting
fresh waters such as ponds, lakes, rivers, canals and
creeks, in large number. An excellent larvivorous form
suitable for open shallow water stretches especially in
rice fields for control of mosquitoes causing Japenese
B encephalitis.
Laboratory trials:
Predation potential of O. melastigma (measuring
2.4 to 2.5 cm) was experimented in glass containers
(measuring 20 ´ 17 ´ 20 cm) against IV instar larvae
of Anopheles sp.22. Study on four subsequent days
revealed that O. melastigma consumed 98 IV instar
larvae of Anopheles per day.
Field trials:
Natural habitats- O. melastigma is a potential
larvivorous fish controlling the occurrence of Japense
B encephalitis by restricting populations of Cx. (C.)
vishnui Theobald, 1901. Breeding habitats of the vector
include rice fields, marshes, ponds, pools, streams,
ditches, borrow pits, irrigation channels, field wells,
rain water in fallow lands18.
A field-based experiment was carried out to evaluate
the efficacy of O. melastigma in controlling mosquito
breeding in rice fields22 rich in Anopheles sp. and Culex
sp. The rice field was divided into nine quadrates of a
square meter surface with 15 cm deep water.
O.melastigma were released in three quadrates each at
the rate of 5 fish per quadrate; three quadrates served
as control. Larval density in each quadrate was
monitored on day 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 and 42
respectively. Percentage reduction in the density of larva
and pupa was calculated. On day 6, O. melastigma
lowered the density of III and IV instar larvae and pupae
by 76.2 per cent and on subsequent days the percentage
reduction ranged from 98.3 to 100 per cent. From day
12 onwards, 100 per cent reduction in larval and pupal
densities was recorded.
6. Danio rerio (Hamilton-Buchanan), 1822 (Common
name: Zebra danio)
Size: Approx. 5 cm (2 inch)
Distribution: All over northern India, Bangladesh; and
Burma (now Myanmar).
Ecology: They are surface feeder both in slow and
moving streams and ponds, common in rivulets at
18 INDIAN J MED RES, JANUARY 2008
foothills; also useful for introduction in clear water, slow
moving stream with grassy margins and shallow earth
wells, seepages for control of malaria.
Laboratory trials:
A laboratory based experiment on predation
potential of D. rerio (measuring 2.4 to 2.5 cm) in glass
containers (measuring 20 ´ 17 ´ 20 cm) against IV instar
larvae of Anopheles sp. was done. The trial was repeated
on four subsequent days and the average number of
larvae consumed per day by each fish was recorded.
Study revealed that D. rerio consumed 52 fourth instar
larvae of Anopheles per day22.
Field trials:
Natural habitats - A field-based experiment to
evaluate the efficacy of D. rerio in controlling mosquito
breeding in rice fields rich in Anopheles sp. and Culex
sp. was carried out21. On day 6, D. rerio lowered the
density of III and IV instar larvae and pupae by 86.8
per cent and on subsequent days the percentage
reduction ranges from 92.4 to 99.3 per cent. From day
12 onwards, 100 per cent reduction in larval and pupal
densities was recorded.
7. Macropodus cupanus (Valenciennes), 1831
(Common name: Spiketailed paradise fish)
Size: Approximately 7.5 cm (3 inches).
Distribution: Eastern India, Sri Lanka, Western Burma
(now Myanmar), Malay Peninsula and Sumatra.
Ecology: M. cupanus is a good larvivorous fish thriving
both in fresh and brackish waters of the low lands; also
found in ditches, paddy fields and shallow waters. It
breeds freely in stagnant waters and is tolerant to low
content or even deficiency of oxygen. It is also suitable
for brackish waters, marshes, lagoons, polluted canals
and ditches.
Laboratory trials:
Mathavan et al23 carried out an experiment with M.
cupanus collected from paddy fields. The collected fish
were grouped into three weight (W) classes (80, 270
and 570 mg live weight) and maintained in separate
glass aquaria. They were acclimated to laboratory
conditions (27 ± 1°C) and fed ad libitum on the fourth
instar larvae of the mosquito Cx. fatigans. To evoke
different levels of hunger, individuals of each W class
were deprived of food for 6, 9, 12, 24 or 48 h before
commencing the feeding experiments. Significant
results were obtained which proved that fish when
deprived of food for equal duration, a larger individual
becomes hungrier than the smaller ones. Further, prey
searching activities of larger individuals increase their
hunger level.
Potential exotic larvivorous fish as biocontrol agents
1. Carassius auratus (Linnaeus), 1758 (Common
name: Gold fish)
Size: 200-460 mm.
Distribution: Naturally found in China, Korea, Taiwan,
Japan, Europe, Siberia, East Asia, Campuchia, etc., and
introduced as an aquarium fish in India.
Ecology: Aquariums and ornamental ponds.
Laboratory trials:
Chatterjee et al24 reported the biocontrol efficacy
of gold fish under experimental conditions. Under
laboratory conditions, one C. auratus was allowed to
feed on 200 IV stage larvae of each of An. subpictus,
Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ar. subalbatus in separate
containers. The number of larvae consumed was
193,188 and 132 per day respectively.
Field trials:
Man made habitats - Unused reservoirs: Under field
conditions, C. auratus efficiently fed upon An. subpictus
larvae in unused water reservoirs in Hooghly, West
Bengal24. There was a remarkable reduction in the per
dip density of An. subpictus larvae from 34.5 to 0.02.
2. Gambusia affinis (Baird & Girard), 1853 (Common
name: Top minnow)
Size: Male - 3.5 cm, Female - 6 cm.
Distribution: A native of coastal waters of United States
from New Jersey southwards, introduced into India
about 40 years ago from Italy and Thailand.
Ecology: Found in freshwater, brackish water and salt
marshes with high salinity. Feed on aquatic and
terrestrial insects. Terrestrial insects that fall in the water
show preference to mosquito larvae.
Laboratory trials:
Chatterjee & Chandra25 reported the biocontrol
efficacy of G. affinis under experimental conditions in
the laboratory. G. affinis consumed per day 48, 51 and
31 larvae of An. subpictus, Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ar.
subalbatus respectively. The fish was more active during
 CHANDRA et al: MOSQUITO CONTROL BY FISH
04.00 - 10.00 h. Feeding rate increased with the increase
in prey and predator densities. Feeding rate decreased
with the increase in water volume (search area).
Field trials:
Natural habitats - Uncultivated land: Hackett26
described the usefulness of the mosquito predatory fish
in malaria control programmes in Europe. According
to him, G. affinis, when employed in an area of about
21 km2 on Istrain peninsula, resulted in the reduction in
malaria rates from 98 per cent in 1924 to 10 per cent in
1980. In the same way, Menon & Rajagopalan27 studied
on the habitat predation rate and larvivorous potentiality
of 14 species of fish found in Pondicherry (now
Puducherry). In this experiment, each Gambusia fish
showed an average predation rate of 65.7 per day on
larvae of An. subpictus. In an experiment conducted by
Singaravelu et al28 (where they studied the predatory
efficiency of G. affinis on the larvae of Ae. aegypti), the
role of predation was found to be dependent on prey
density.
Marshy areas - G. affinis holbrooki were introduced
from Italy into the Ghazian marshes during 1922 and
were successful in combating malaria29.
Man made habitats:
Wells - In Hyderabad city, India, an operational
release of G. a. holbrooki in 1967 controlled the breeding
of An. stephensi in hundreds of wells in about 2 years30.
31
Casuarina pits - Rao et al carried out a study to
assess the feasibility of controlling mosquito breeding
in casuarina pits in four coastal villages of Pondicherry
(now Puducherry) using G. affinis. An. subpictus is the
predominant species breeding in the casuarinas pits. A
drastic reduction was noted in the number of pit
breeding mosquitoes and the maximum control achieved
was about 96 per cent. In the check villages where no
fish was noticed, the percentage of pit breeding
mosquitoes ranged from 55.5 to 91.6 per cent.
Overhead tanks - Rajnikant et al32 through a series
of experiments, showed that G. affinis was the best
predator of the larvae of An. stephensi breeding in
overhead tanks.
Rice fields - G. affinis is the most widely used
species in anti-malarial programmes. It has been used
worldwide. G. affinis, when introduced at a rate of 46
fish/m2 water surface in the rice fields, brought about
a sharp reduction in the anopheline larval densities
19
and vector biting rates 33 . The experiments were
performed in the Kunder valley of Afghanistan.
According to the report of Tabibzadeh
et al34, Gambusia sp. substantially reduced anopheline
larvae in habitats in Iran and contributed to a reduction
in malaria transmission and was found to be an
important component in malaria eradication. When
rice fields had been stocked with 250 to 750 G. affinis
per hectare, there was a 95 per cent and a 40 per cent
reduction in the immature density of An. freeborni and
An. pulcherrimus respectively. In an almost similar
experimental set up, Das & Prasad 35 evaluated the
mosquito control potential of G. affinis in the rice fields
in Shahjahanpur district of Uttar Pradesh, India. At a
stocking rate of 5 fish/sq.m, G. affinis significantly
reduced the larval and pupal densities in experimental
fields as compared to control fields during the entire
observation period of 42 days. Control of mosquito
breeding in rice fields through fish seemed to be
promising. Prasad et al 36 reported that G. affinis
survived well in submerged rice fields and provided
87.8 per cent mosquito larval control in Shahajahanpur
district, Uttar Pradesh, during 1991. Rajnikant et al31
showed that mosquito fish, G. affinis was the best
predator of the larvae of An. culicifacies and An.
subpictus breeding in rice fields.
3. Poecilia (Lebistes) reticulata (Peters), 1859
(Common name: Guppy)
Size: Male - 2 cm (0.75 inch); Female - 4 cm (1.5 inch).
Distribution: It is originally from tropical America. The
native distribution includes The Netherlands, West
Indies and from Western Venezuela to Guyana. It was
imported to India more than once, and restricted to south
India and some other parts.
Ecology: Poecilia cannot tolerate low temperature. A
prolific breeder in tropical waters requiring a
temperature between 22 and 24°C, Poecilia lives on
artificial food and prefers mosquito larvae. It has been
found to tolerate pollution more than Gambusia.
Laboratory trials:
According to laboratory experiments, an adult and
a fingerling of P. reticulata can consume 32 and 18 IV
stage An. subpictus larvae in 24 h37.
Field trials:
Natural habitats - Menon & Rajagopalan27 studied
the habitat, predation rate and larvivorous potentiality
of 14 species of fish found in Pondicherry (Puducherry).
20 INDIAN J MED RES, JANUARY 2008
Average predation of P. reticulata per day was 53.1
and range of consumption was from 15 to 100.
Rice fields - Nalim & Tribuwono38 studied the rice
field breeding mosquito An. aconitus in central Java
and their effective control using P. reticulata through
community participation. They also noticed a sharp
decline in the number of malarial cases after
introduction of effective biocontrol procedures with
larvivorous fishes.
Man made habitats:
Cisterns and washbasins - Sabatinelli et al39 reported
that in Grand Comore Island, the indigenous fish,
P. reticulata, effectively suppressed larval and adult
population of An.gambiae in washbasins, and cisterns
by 85 per cent in a single year using 3-5 fish in a water
surface of 1 m2.
Containers - Gupta et al40 reported that in India,
P. reticulata effectively reduced the breeding of
An. stephensi and An. subpictus population breeding in
containers, by 86 per cent using 5-10 fish in a water
surface of 1 m2.
41
Drains - Saha et al studied on the use of guppy
(P. reticulata) as a powerful biocontrol agent in the
field of mosquito eradication. They selected twenty
mosquito breeding surface drains in the outskirts of
Kolkata; ten were observed to contain both mosquito
larvae and guppy fishes and the remaining ten were
used as control. Per dip larval and pupal densities of
Cx. quinquefasciatus varied remarkably than the
corresponding densities in the drains without guppy
fish.
Wells - The role of P. reticulata in the control of
mosquito breeding in Ghaziabad district villages near
Delhi was judged by the density of immatures and
larvivorous fishes; mosquito breeding was found
effectively controlled in wells provided the fish did not
die or were not prevented from feeding on larvae due
to debris. Guppies survived and multiplied in wells over
the twenty two week period of observations22. Malaria
was a major problem in a sericulture area of Karnataka,
south India, where An. culicifacies s.l. and An. fluviatilis
s.l. were considered to be the main vectors. Sibling
species complexes of these two species were analyzed
in three ecologically different villages. Among An.
culicifacies, only sibling species A and B were found.
In Puram, a village with 22 wells, species A
predominated; species B predominated in a village with
four wells and a stream, and in a village with a stream
and no wells. P. reticulata fish were introduced into all
wells and streams in the villages, and after one year no
vectors were found in Puram, and all, or nearly all, An.
culicifacies were species B in the other two villages.
All An. fluviatilis belonged to the sibling species T.
Before the introduction of fish, the annual parasite
incidence for malaria was high in Puram, but much
lower in the other two villages. From 1998 (over one
year after release of fish) until 2003, no malaria cases
were detected in the three villages42.
4. Nothobranchius guentheri (Pfeffer), (Common
name: Killi fish: Egg laying toothed carp)
Size: 7 cm (2.5 inch), females are smaller than males.
Distribution: East Africa: Mombassa to the Pangani
River in Tanzania.
Ecology: N. guentheri is a fast growing fish, growing
from egg to spawning adult in four weeks. Female lays
about 20-100 eggs per day for the whole life which may
be until the pool dries up during the dry season.
Field trials:
Natural habitats - Vanderplank43 brought into light
the fact that N. guentheri was the most suitable anti-
malaria fish available for use when Panama Canal was
under construction.
5. Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton-Buchanan), 1822
(Common name: Fresh water gar fish)
Size: 30 cm (12 inch).
Distribution: Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,
Burma (now Myanmar) and Thailand.
Ecology: This is an elegant surface living fish, which
attains a length of 40 cm TL. In North Bengal, it occurs
in clear, gravelly, perennial streams and ponds of Terai
and Duars. It is fairly common in the Ganga-
Brahmaputra system.
Laboratory trials:
Chatterjee & Chandra44 reported the efficacy of X.
cancila as biocontrol agent against fourth stage larval
form of An. subpictus, Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ar.
subalbatus under laboratory conditions. Its average
consumption rate during 24 h study period was
appreciable. Three specimens of X. cancila separately
consumed an average of 31, 28, 21 of An. subpictus,
Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ar. subalbatus respectively
during 24 h study period.
 CHANDRA et al: MOSQUITO CONTROL BY FISH
6.(i) Oreochromis mossambica (Peters), 1852
(Common name: Mozambique cichlid, Tilapia)
Size: Up to 32 cm (12-13 inch).
Distribution: East Africa; an introduced species in India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc.
Ecology: O. mossambica grows fast and attains a
maximum large size (approx. 3 kg). It is observed in
wild, but stunting is common in culture. It grows well
and reproduces under salinities as high as 35 per cent.
The lower lethal temperature for this species is 10°C.
O. mossambica is a good candidate for hybridization if
salinity tolerance is desired in the offspring generation.
Field trials:
Man made habitats - O. mossambica were effective
for controlling mosquitoes in cow dung pits22 when
introduced against III and IV instar larvae and pupae of
Cx. quinquefasciatus and An. culicifacies at the rate of
5 fish per square meter surface area.
(ii) Oreochromis niloticus niloticus (Linnaeus),
(Common name: Nile Tilapia)
Size: Up to 34 cm (13-14 inch).
Distribution: East Africa, West Africa, River Nile.
Ecology: O. niloticus niloticus is the fastest growing
species in many countries. Maximum size is about
3 kg. It does not tolerate high salinity and has poor cold
tolerance. It is highly suitable for farming in tropical
climate, fresh water and brackish water systems. The
lower lethal temperature is 12°C.
Laboratory trials:
Ghosh et al 45 performed an experiment and
established O. n. niloticus as a strong biological agent
against larval mosquitoes in the laboratory.
Field trials:
Man made habitats - Under field conditions a study
revealed a significant decrease in per dip larval density
after one and half month from introduction of fishes45.
The larval density again increased significantly after
removal of fish from mosquito breeding ground. When
20 fish were introduced in field conditions, the per dip
larval density reduced to 17.38 and 11.39 after 30 and
45 days respectively from an initial value of 26.78. On
the contrary, the larval density increased to 21.2 and
24.37 after 30 and 45 days respectively after removal
of fish.
21
Mixed culture of larvivorous fishes as biocontrol
agents
In order to obtain high production per ha of water
body, fast growing compatible species of fish of
different feeding habits, or different weight classes of
the same species are stocked together in the same pond
so that all its ecological niches are occupied by fish.
This system of pond management is called mixed fish
farming or composite fish culture or polyculture.
Predation under co-existence reveals the
significance of predatory efficiency of different predator
combinations with reference to prey density and
exposure period. Several experimental set ups were
initiated by different researchers using a mixture of
exotic and indigenous fish and at times even bacteria
were included. The main aim was to study the efficacy
of such combinations as potential biocontrol agents and
thereby control mosquito borne diseases.
Laboratory trials:
Ambrose et al46 performed a predation experiment
using Gerris (A) spinolae, Laccotrephes griseus and G.
affinis against fourth stage culicine larvae with varying
prey densities. Ranking of individual predatory efficiency
showed the following sequence: large Gambusia >
medium Gambusia > small Gambusia > female
Laccotrephes > male Laccotrephes > Gerris. Predation
under co-existence revealed the significance of predatory
efficiency of different predator combinations with
reference to prey density and exposure period.
Further Kim et al47 demonstrated biological control
of vector mosquitoes (An. sinensis) by the use of fish
predators, Moroco oxycephalus and Misgurnus
anguillicandatus in the laboratory. A sustained control
was achieved during the study period. It was Hurst et
al48 who first reported the predation efficacy of 7 native
Brisbane fresh water fish on I and IV instars of the fresh
water arbovirus vector Cx. annulirostris when evaluated
in a series of 24 h laboratory trials. The predatory
efficacy of native crimson-spotted rainbow fish
Melanotaenia duboulayi (Melanotaeniidae), Australian
smelt Retropinna semoni (Retropinnadae), Pacific blue-
eye Pseudomugil signifer (Atherinidae), firetail
gudgeon Hyposeleotris galii (Eleotridae), empire
gudgeon Hypseleotris compressa (Eleotridae), and
estuary perchlet Ambassis marianus (Ambassidae) was
compared with that of the exotic eastern mosquito fish
Gambusia holbrooki (Poeciliidae). This environmentally
damaging exotic fish has been disseminated worldwide
22 INDIAN J MED RES, JANUARY 2008
and has been declared noxious in Queensland. M.
duboulayi was found to consume the greatest number
of both I and IV instars of Cx. annulirostris. The
predation efficacy of the remaining Australian native
species was comparable with that of the exotic G.
holbrooki. Later Ghosh et al49 reported that predation
experiments using aquarium fish Betta splendens,
Pseudotropheus tropheops, Osphronemus gorami and
Ptereophyllum scalarae were conducted against fourth
instar Anopheles stephensi larvae with varying prey
and predator densities. Ranking of individual efficacy
against the larval form showed the following sequence:
P. tropheops > B. splendens > O. gorami > P. scalarae.
The mean larval feeding rates per day of each of the
different fish in 1 liter of water were 247, 238, 180
and 40 respectively in descending order of predation
efficacy. The corresponding feeding rates in 2 liter of
water were 185, 185, 134 and 30 respectively and were
not statistically different whether tasted individually
or in a school of six. Predation experiment using C.
carpio (Linnaeus 1758), Ctenopharyngdon idella
(Valenciennes 1844), O. n. niloticus (Linnaeus 1758)
and Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822) were
conducted against fourth instar An. stephensi (Liston
1901) larvae at varying prey and predator densities50.
The relative consumption rates of these four fish
species on An. stephensi larvae during 24 h
experiments under laboratory conditions were Cl.
gariepinus > C. idella > C. carpio > O. n. niloticus.
Predatory efficacy was positively related with prey
density and inversely related with water volume i.e.
search area.
A laboratory-based experiment was conducted on
larval feeding efficacy of fish against III and IV instar
larvae of Anopheles, Culex and Aedes sp. in BHEL
industrial complex22 where, 10 fish [5 P. reticulata
(length 3.0 ± 0.1 cm) and 5 G. affinis (length 3.5 ± 0.1
cm)] were placed in separate enamel basins. After 30
min of introduction of fish, 25 III and IV instar larvae
were let in and the larvae swallowed by fish after 10,
20 and 30 min and every hour up to 6 h were counted.
The results of the laboratory studies showed that in the
first hour, fish were slow in devouring larvae but became
very voracious later on. P. reticulata consumed 76 larvae
in 6 h, with an average larvivorous potential of 2.53
larvae per hour per fish. On the contrary, G. affinis was
somewhat fast in initial hours but slowed down later
and consumed only 50 larvae in 6 hrs with an average
larvivorous capacity of 1.66 larvae per hour per fish.
Chatterjee & Chandra37 studied the feeding activity of
the fish, G. affinis and Lebistes reticulatus on An.
subpictus larvae in the laboratory. They observed that
the average larval feeding rate of adult G. affinis and L.
reticulatus was 48 and 32 per day respectively in the
laboratory.
Field trials:
Natural habitats - Ghosh et al 50 reported that
predation experiment using C. carpio (Linnaeus 1758),
Ctenopharyngdon idella (Valenciennes 1844), O. n.
niloticus (Linnaeus 1758) and Clarias gariepinus
(Burchell 1822) were conducted against fourth instar
An. stephensi (Liston 1901) larvae. A significant
decrease in larval abundance in dipper samples was
observed at 30 and 45 days since introduction of fish
under field conditions. The efficacy of the fish under
field conditions was also established by significant
increase of larval mosquito abundance at the 30th and
the 45 th day since removal of fish from mosquito
breeding spots. Willems et al51 reported the predation
rate of Pseudomugil signifer and G. holbrooki against
four larval instars of Cx. annulirostris, three prey
densities, and three vegetation densities. In simulated
vegetation trials, P. signifer performed marginally better
than G. holbrooki in medium to high-density vegetation
(0.3 stems/cm2 and 0.6 stems/cm2, respectively).
Rice fields - Yu & Lee52 studied the biological
control of malaria vector (An. sinensis Wied) by the
combined use of larvivorous fish (Aplocheilus latipus)
and herbivorous hybrid fish (Tilapia mossambicus
niloticus) in the rice fields of Korea. Stocking of A.
latipus and T. mossambicus in weed infested rice fields
resulted in an 80-82 per cent reduction in the immature
density of An. sinensis from fifth week onwards. Initially
the reduction in the larval density was in the range of
70.8 and 73.5 per cent. Later, Kramer 53 tried both fish
(G. affinis and Tilapia nilotica nilotica respectively) and
Bacillus thuringiensis together and found that both the
control agents were compatible in controlling An.
freeborni and An. franciscanus (for the former) and An.
gambiae (for the latter) breeding in rice fields. In China,
Wu et al54 found that stocking rice paddies with edible
fish (Cyprinus carpio, Ctenopharyngodon idella,
Tilapia spp.) improved rice yield, supported significant
fish production, and greatly reduced the number of
malaria cases by reducing population of An. sinensis
within 150-170 days. Wee et al55 studied the advantages
of mosquito control by stocking edible fish in rice
paddies. In various field studies conducted in China, it
was found that stocking edible fish viz., C. carpio, C.
 CHANDRA et al: MOSQUITO CONTROL BY FISH
idella and Tilapia species at the rate of 60-800/0.07
hectare in rice fields controlled breeding of An. sinensis
significantly, which, in turn was correlated with
decrease in malarial transmission. Cost - benefit analysis
indicated that this approach provided considerable
economic advantages and gave incentive to the
community to participate in vector control programmes.
Biological control of vector mosquitoes (An. sinensis)
was demonstrated by Kim et al47 using fish predators,
Moroco oxycephalus and Misgurnus anguillicandatus
in the semifield rice paddy. A sustained control (53.8 -
55.2%) was achieved during the study period.
Composite culture of edible fishes in rice fields, resulted
in 81 per cent reduction in immature population of An.
subpictus and An. Vagus 56. Bellini et al 57 showed
efficacy of various fish species (Carassius auratus, C.
carpio, G. affinis) in the control of rice field mosquitoes
in northern Italy.
Ponds - Chatterjee & Chandra37 studied feeding
activity of the fish, G. affinis and Lebistes reticulatus on
An. subpictus larvae in field conditions in the Hooghly
district, West Bengal and observed that larval density
decreased from 25.7 to 0.36 and 23.7 to 0.5 per dip in the
presence of G. affinis and L. reticulatus respectively.
Peridomestic habitats - Integrated control of
peridomestic larval habitats of Aedes sp. and Culex sp.
was studied58, and mosquito abundance before and after
treatment with P. reticulata and polystyrene beads was
compared to the abundance in an untreated village.
Entomological indices from human bait collections and
larval surveys indicated that mosquito populations were
reduced significantly compared with concurrent
samples from the untreated control village and that
mosquito control remained effective for 6 months since
treatment.
Man made habitats:
Tanks - Martinez-Ibarra et al59 conducted studies
on the indigenous fish species for the control of
Ae. aegypti in water storage tanks in Southern Mexico.
Five indigenous fish species, Lepisosteus tropicus (Gill),
Astyanax fasciatus (Cuvier), Brycon guatemalensis
(Regan), Ictalurus meridionalis (Gunther) and P.
reticulata (Valenciennes) were used as mosquito control
agents. The study revealed significant efficacy of
indigenous fish against larval mosquitoes.
Ditches - Marti et al60 reported that two neotropical
fish species, Cnesterodon decemmaculatus (Poeciliidae)
and Jenynsia multidentata (Anablepidae), were
23
collected from human made ditches, a common habitat
of Cx. pipiens in La Plata, Argentina. C.
decemmaculatus and J. multidentata adults consumed
IV instar larvae of Cx. pipiens but the consumption rate
varied with prey and predator densities. Eradication of
Cx. pipiens from a ditch, where densities had averaged
250 immatures per dip, was achieved 17 days after the
introduction of 1700 C. decemmaculatus.
Open blocked drain, underground tank, effluent
ponds and cement tanks: A field-based experiment on
larval feeding efficacy of fish (P. reticulata and
G. affinis) in four different habitats22. P. reticulata were
introduced in open blocked drains and factory
underground tanks, whereas G. affinis were released in
effluent pond and cement tanks in the township. Four
similar habitats were selected as control. The larval
density of each habitat was monitored at weekly
intervals using a 250 ml dipper.
Fish at the rate of about 50 fish/sq. meter were
introduced. Field studies on the impact of P. reticulata
on mosquito breeding in drains showed that it can
control heavy Cx. quinquefasciatus breeding in about
3 months, the larval density being reduced from 145/
dip to 20/dip. The impact of P. reticulata was highly
pronounced in factory underground tanks supporting
heavy breeding of Culex sp. There was 100 per cent
elimination of breeding of Culex sp. in about four weeks
and no breeding was recorded in subsequent weeks. On
the other hand, in case of G. affinis, breeding was
controlled up to 90-95 per cent in effluent ponds in about
3 months where it was able to control 100 per cent
breeding of An. culicifacies and An. stephensi in about
2 wk in cement tank inside township21.
In India, uses of larvivorous fish constitute one of
the important components of the Urban Malaria
Schemes (UMS) and have been incorporated as an
important component of selective vector control strategy
in the Enhanced Malaria Control Project (EMCP)
launched in 1998 with World Bank support in the tribal
areas of Gujarat and other parts of the country though
UMS faced with operational constraints during
application61. Due to emerging threat of malaria and
dengue in urban areas, Malaria Research Centre (MRC)
(now National Institute of Malaria Research) Field
Station at Nadiad in collaboration with the Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation took up a demonstration project
on the management of malaria and dengue vectors in
Ahmedabad city 62 . Impact of larvivorous fish on
mosquito breeding was assessed by monitoring the
24 INDIAN J MED RES, JANUARY 2008
larval density before and after the application. The most
common mosquito breeding places such as underground
cement tanks, ground level tanks, fountains, elevator
chambers (lift wells), wells, mill hydrant tanks, cattle
troughs and ponds were exclusively monitored. In
general, a sharp reduction in the larval densities was
observed in most of the habitats during the post
application period.
Experience of the development of larvivorous fish
network for mosquito control in Ahmedabad city
demonstrated the feasibility of using larvivorous fish
and proved that this can play an important role in
mosquito control in urban areas provided a systematic
and planned approach is applied. This strategy would
be helpful in controlling the re-emergence of certain
vector-borne diseases, particularly in urban areas and
will reduce the dependence on insecticides62.
Discussion & Conclusion
Mosquitoes are and will be the major concerns to
come. Biological control is expected to play an
increasing role in vector management strategies of the
future. The technology is challenging as well as difficult.
Unlike the chemical pesticides, the results are often
unpredictable with biological agents. This calls for a
better understanding of the biological interactions with
the environment. Developing and acquiring the
necessary skills assume paramount importance. Another
important consideration is the recognition of the fact
that, in developing countries like India, success of such
strategies depends on developing simple technology
backed by a campaign of public education. Interventions
targeting vectors of diseases are essentially the most
effective strategies to control vector-borne diseases.
Much of the current efforts directed at the development
of new mosquito control tools are confined to the
laboratory scale63. Only biological agents carry the
potential for overcoming such obstacles, and the most
likely agents are those represented by closely related
organisms. Towards this end, we require a programme
of biological research aimed towards understanding the
factors that limit the number of mosquitoes. The search
efficiency of the introduced predator and prey selectivity
patterns of larvivorous organisms need to be explored
by offering mosquito larvae in combination with other
alternate natural prey. The success in measuring the
efficacy of the candidate agents depends on a multitude
of factors: (i) characterization of natural enemy
candidates including ecological, morphological,
taxonomical, or genetic markers; (ii) selection of
climatically matching candidates; (iii) evaluation of
semi-field or field cage conditions following quarantine
evaluations prior to proceeding with natural release; (iv)
assessment of unintended impacts; and (v) the potential
efficacy of existing indigenous agents against larval
populations.
The two main factors determining the efficacy of
the fish are the suitability of the fish species to the water
bodies where the vector species breed and the ability
of the fish to eat enough larvae of vector species to
reduce the number of infective bites. The first factor is
best addressed by finding a native fish species that
thrives under the conditions prevalent in breeding sites
rather than to change breeding sites to accustom the
fish, although Wu et al54 have recommended a ditch ridge
system for rice fields to better accommodate the fish. It
has to be kept in mind that the use of pesticides and
fertilizers can negatively influence fish stocked in
irrigated fields64. The second factor may be strongly
influenced by aquatic vegetation, which in turn, can
interfere with fish feeding and can also provide refuge
for the mosquito larvae. The effectiveness of larvivorous
fish to control mosquitoes may vary due to
environmental complexity. It needs to evaluate the
efficacy of several indigenous larvivorous fish in
seasonal wetlands and larger water bodies and their role
in the trophic cascade from the community view point65.
There are several disadvantages of using
larvivorous fish. Gambusia when stocked in waters
outside their native range, often causes serious negative
ecological impacts. Gambusia is an opportunistic
predator with a highly variable diet that includes algae,
zooplankton, aquatic insects, as well as eggs and young
of fish and amphibians. Gracia-Berthou66 documented
a diet shift from diatoms to cladocerans to adult insect
with the maturation of Gambusia. They are voracious
and highly aggressive fish that compete with the native
fish very successfully for viable food and space.
Gambusia essentially depletes all large zooplankton
while rotifers and phytoplankton densities increase67,68.
Gambusia also consumes a high percentage of the
phytoplankton grazers. They indirectly cause adverse
ecological changes including increased phytoplankton
abundance, higher water temperatures, more dissolved
organic phosphorous and decreased water clarity 69.
Periodic removal of vegetation may be needed to
facilitate the activity of the fish70. In temporary or
ephemeral mosquito habitats, other forms of control
must be developed as evoking active community
participation will be a more difficult task.
 CHANDRA et al: MOSQUITO CONTROL BY FISH
References
1. Collins LE, Blackwell A. The biology of Toxorhynchites
mosquitoes and their potential as biocontrol agents. Biocontrol
News Information 2000; 21 : 105-16.
2. Milam CD, Farris JL, Wilhide JD. Evaluating mosquito control
pesticides for effect on target and non-target organisms. Arch
Environ Contam Toxicol 2000; 39 : 324-8.
3. Service MW. Biological control of mosquitoes – has it a future?
Mosq News 1983; 43 : 113.
4. Service MW. Importance of ecology in Aedes aegypti control.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1992; 23 : 681-8.
5. Gratz NG, Pal R. Malaria vector control: larviciding. In:
Wernsdorfer WH, McGregor I, editors. Malaria: Principles
and practice of malariology. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill
Livingstone; 1988. p. 1213-26.
6. Mulla MS. Mosquito control investigations with emphasis on
integration of chemical and biological control in mosquito
abatement. 29 th Proc Pap Ann Con Calif Mosquito Contr
Assoc 1961. p. 1-4.
7. Raghavendra K, Subbarao SK. Chemical insecticides in
malaria vector control in India. ICMR Bull 2002; 32 : 1-7.
8. Gerberich JB. Update of annotated bibliography of papers
relating to control of mosquitoes by the use of fish for the
years 1965. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1985
(unpublished document VBC/ 85.917.
9. Waage JK, DJ Greathead. Biological control: challenges and
opportunities. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 1988; 318 : 111-28.
10. Marten GG, Bordes ES, Nguyen M. Use of cyclopoid copepoid
for mosquito control. Hydrobiologia 1994; 292/293 : 491-6.
11. Arthington AH, Lloyd LN. Introduced Poecillidae in Australia
and New Zealand. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF, editors.
Evolution and ecology of live bearing fishes (Poecillidae),
New York: Prentice-Hall; 1989. p. 333-48.
12. Arthington AH, Marshall CJ. Diet of the exotic mosquito fish
Gambusia holbrooki in an Australian lake and potential for
competition with indigenous fish species. Asian Fish Sci 1999;
12 : 1-16.
13. Denoth M, Frid L, Myers JH. Multiple agents in biological
control: improving the odds? Biol Control 2002; 24 : 20-30.
14. Carlson J, Keating J, Mbogo CM, Kahindi S, Beier JC.
Ecological limitations on aquatic mosquito predator
colonization in the urban environment. J Vector Ecol 2004;
29 : 331-9.
15. Job TJ. An investigation of the nutrition of the perches of the
Madras coast. Rec Mind Mus 1940; 42 : 289-364.
16. Hora SL, Mukherjee DD. The absence of millions, Lebistes
reticulates (Peters) in India. Malaria Bureau No.4, Health
Bulletin No.12, Delhi 1938. p. 1-49.
17. Ataur-Rahim M. Observations on Aphanius dispar (Ruppell,
1828), a mosquito larvivorous fish in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ann Trop Med Parasit 1981; 75 : 359-62.
18. Manual of entomological surveillance of vector-borne
diseases. Delhi: National Institute of Communicable Diseases;
1988.
19. Louis JP, Albert JP. Malaria in the Republic of Djibouti.
Strategy for control using a biological antilarval campaign:
25
indigenous larvivorous fish (Aphanius dispar) and bacterial
toxins. Med Trop 1988; 48 : 127-31.
20. Fletcher M, Teklehaimanot A, Yemane G. Control of mosquito
larvae in the port city of Assam by an indigenous larvivorous
fish, Aphanius dispar. Acta Tropica 1992; 52 : 155-66.
21. Kumar A, Sharma VP, Sumodan PK, Thavaselvam D. Field
trials of biolarvicide Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis
strain 164 and the larvivorous fish Aplocheilus blocki against
Anopheles stephensi for malaria control in Goa, India. J Am
Mos Control Assoc 1998; 14 : 457-62.
22. Sharma VP, Ghosh A, editors. Larvivorous Fishes of Inland
Ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the MRC-CICFRI Workshop;
1989 Sep 27-28; New Delhi. Malaria Research Centre (ICMR):
Delhi; 1989.
23. Mathavan S, Muthukrishnan J, Heleenal GA. Studies on
predation on mosquito larvae by the fish Macropodus cupanus.
Hydrobiologia 1980; 75 : 255-8.
24. Chatterjee SN, Das S, Chandra G. Gold fish (Carrasius
auratus) as a strong larval predator of mosquito. Trans Zool
Soc India 1997; 1 : 112-4.
25. Chatterjee SN, Chandra G. Laboratory trials on the feeding
pattern of Anopheles subpictus, Culex quinquefasciatus and
Armigeres subalbatus larvae by Gambusia affinis. Sci Cult
1997; 63 : 51-2.
26. Hackett LW. Malaria in Europe. An ecological study. London:
Oxford University Press; 1937.
27. Menon PKB, Rajagopalan PK. Control of mosquito breeding
in wells by using Gambusia affinis and Aplocheilus blochii in
Pondicherry town. Indian J Med Res 1978; 68 : 927-33.
28. Singaravelu G, Mahalingam S, Jaya Bharati K. Predatory
efficiency of larvivorous fish Gambusia affinis on the mosquito
larvae of Aedes aegypti and Anopheles stephensi. Curr Sci
1997; 72 : 512-4.
29. Tabibzadeh GB, Nakhai R. 1970. Use of Gambusia fish in the
malaria eradication programme of Iran. Geneva, World Health
Organization, (unpublished document WHO/VBC/70.198).
30. Sitaraman NL, Karim MA, Reddy GV. Observations on the
use of Gambusia affinis holbrooki to control Anopheles
stephensi breeding in wells. Results of two years’ study in
Greater Hyderabad city, India. Indian J Med Res 1975; 63 :
1509-16.
31. Rao BUS, Krishnamoorthy K, Reddy CBS, Panicker KN.
Feasibility of mosquito larval control in casuarina pits using
Gambusia affinis. Indian J Med Res 1982; 76 : 684-8.
32. Rajnikant, Pandey SD, Sharma SK. Role of biological agents
for the control of mosquito breeding in rice fields. Indian J
Malariol 1996; 33 : 209-15.
33. Rafatjah HA, Arata AA. 1975. The use of larvivorous fish in
antimalaria programmes. Geneva, World Health Organization,
(unpublished document MAL/WP/75.6 Rev. 1).
34. Tabibzadeh I, Behbehani G, Nakhai R. Use of Gambusia affinis
as a biological agent against Culex tarsalis and Anopheles
freeborni in Sacramento valley rice fields. Mosq News 1971;
32 : 146-52.
35. Das MK, Prasad RN. Evaluation of mosquito fish Gambusia
affinis in the control of mosquito breeding in rice fields. Indian
J Malariol. 1991;28 : 171-7.
26 INDIAN J MED RES, JANUARY 2008
36. Prasad H, Prasad RN, Haq S. Role of biological agents for
the control of mosquito breeding through Gambusia affinis
in rice fields. Indian J Malariol 1993; 30 : 57-65.
37. Chatterjee SN, Chandra G. Feeding pattern of Gambusia
affinis and Lebistes reticulates on Anopheles subpictus larvae
in the laboratory and field conditions. J Appl Zool Res 1997;
8 : 152-3.
38. Nalim S, Tribuwono D. Control demonstration of the rice field
breeding mosquito Anopheles aconitus Donitz in central Java,
using Poecilia reticulata through community participation:
2. Culturing, distribution and use of fish in the field. Bull
Penet Kesehatan 1987; 15 : 1-7.
39. Sabatinelli G, Blanchy S, Majori G, Papakay M. Impact de
l’utilisations du poisson larvivore Poecilia reticulata sur la
transmission du paludisme en RFI des Comores. Ann Parasitol
Hum Comp 1991; 66 : 84-8.
40. Gupta DK, Bhatt RM, Sharma RC, Gautam AS, Rajnikant.
Intradomestic mosquito breeding sources and their
management. Indian J Malariol 1992; 29 : 41-6.
41. Saha D, Biswas D, Chatterjee KK, Chandra G, Bhattacharya
A, Bhattacharya S, et al. Guppy (Poecelia reticulata) as a
natural predator of Culex quinquefasciatus larvae. Bull Cal
Sch Med 1986; 34 : 1-4.
42. Ghosh SK, Tiwari SN, Sathyanarayan TS, Sampath TR,
Sharma VP, Nanda N, et al. Larvivorous fish in wells target
the malaria vector sibling species of the Anopheles culicifacies
complex in villages in Karnataka, India. Trans R Soc Trop
Med Hyg 2005; 99 : 101-5.
43. Vanderplank FL. Nothobranchius and Barbus sp: Indigenous
antimalarial fish in East Africa. E Afr Med J 1941; 17 : 431-6.
44. Chatterjee SN, Chandra G. Laboratory trials on the feeding
pattern of Anopheles subpictus, Culex quinquefasciatus and
Armigeres subalbatus by Xenentodon cancila fry. Env Ecol
1996; 14 : 173-4.
45. Ghosh A, Bhattacharjee I, Chandra G. Biocontrol efficacy by
Oreochromis niloticus niloticus. J Appl Zool Res 2006; 17 :
114-6.
46. Ambrose T, Mani T, Vincent S, Cyril L, Kumar A, Mathews
KT. Biocontrol efficacy of Gerris (A) spinolae, Laccotrephes
griseus and Gambusia affinis on larval mosquitoes. Indian J
Malariol 1993; 30 : 187-92.
47. Kim HC, Kim MS, Yu HS. Biological control of vector
mosquitoes by the use of fish predators, Moroco oxycephalus
and Misgurnus anguillicandatus in the laboratory and semi
field rive paddy. Korean J Entomol 1994; 24 : 269-84.
48. Hurst TP, Brown MD, Kay BH. Laboratory evaluation of the
predation efficacy of native Australian fish on Culex
annulirostris (Diptera: Culicidae). Am J Mosq Control Assoc
2004; 20 : 286-91.
49. Ghosh A, Bhattacharjee I, Ganguly M, Mondal S, Chandra G.
Efficacy of some common aquarium fishes as biocontrol agent
of preadult mosquitoes. Bull Pen Kesh 2004; 32 : 144-9.
50. Ghosh A, Mondal S, Bhattacharjee I, Chandra G. Biological
control of vector mosquitoes by some common exotic fish
predators. Turk J Biol 2005; 29 : 167-71.
51. Willems KJ, Cameron EW, Russell RC. A comparison of
mosquito predation by the fish Pseudomugil signifer Kner and
Gambusia holbrooki (Girard) in laboratory trials. J Vect Ecol
2005; 30 : 87-90.
52. Yu HS, Lee JH. Biological control of malaria vector
(Anopheles sinensis Wied.) by combined use of larvivorous
fish (Aplocheilus latipus) and herbivorous hybrid (Tilapia
mossambicus niloticus) in rice paddies of Korea. Korean J
Appl Entomol 1989; 28 : 229-36.
53. Kramer VL. The ecology and biological control of mosquitoes
[Culex tarsalis, Anopheles freeborni and Anopheles
franciscanus (Anopheles pseudopunctipennis franciscanus)]
in California wild and white rice fields (using Bacillus
thuringiensis and larvivorous fish). Dissertation Abstracts
International. Bull Sci Engin 1989; 49 : 4670-B.
54. Wu N, Liao G, Li D, Luo Y, Zhong G. The advantages of
mosquito biocontrol by stocking edible fish in rice paddies.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1991; 22 : 436-
42.
55. Wee N, Liao GH, Li DF, Luo YL, Zhong GM. The advantage
of mosquito biocontrol by stocking edible fish in rice paddies.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1991; 22 : 436-42.
56. Victor TJ, Chandrasekaran B, Reuben R. Composite fish
culture for mosquito control in rice field in Southern India.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1994; 25 : 522-7.
57. Bellini R, Veronesi R, Rizzoli M. Efficacy of various fish
species Carassius auratus (L.), Cyprinus carpio (L.),
Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard) in the control of rice field
mosquitoes in Northern Italy. Bull Soc Vector Ecol 1994; 19 :
87-99.
58. Lardeux F, Sechan Y, Loncke S, Deparis X, Cheffort J, Faaruia
M. Integrated control of peridomestic larval habitats of Aedes
and Culex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Atoll villages
of French Polynesia. J Med Entomol 2002; 39 : 493-8.
59. Martinez-Ibarra JA, Guillen YG, Arredondo-Jimenez JI,
Rodrigu-Lopez MH. Indigenous fish species for the control
of Aedes aegypti in water storage tanks in Southern Mexico.
BioControl 2002; 47 : 481-6.
60. Marti GA, Azpelicueta MM,Tranchida MC,Pelizza SA, Garcia
JJ. Predation efficiency of indigenous larvivorous fish species
on Culex pipiiens L. larvae (Diptera: Culicidae) in drainage
ditches in Argentina. J Vect Ecol 2006; 31 : 102-6.
61. Pattanayak S, Sharma VP, Kalra NL, Orlov VS, Sharma
RS.Malaria paradigms in India and control strategies. Indian
J Malariol 1994; 31 : 141-99.
62. Haq S, Yadav RS. Developing larvivorous fish network for
mosquito control in urban areas: A case study. ICMR Bull
2003; 33 : 69-73.
63. Spielman A, Kitron U, Pollack RJ. Time limitation and the
role of research in the worldwide attempt to eradicate malaria.
J Med Entomol 1993; 30 : 6-19.
64. Lacey LA, Lacey CM. The medical importance or riceland
mosquitoes and their control using alternatives to chemical
insecticides. J Am Mos Control Assoc 1990; 6 (Suppl) : 1-93.
65. Blaustein L, Chase JM. Interactions between mosquito larvae
and species that share the same trophic level. Ann Rev Entomol
2007; 52 : 489-507.
 CHANDRA et al: MOSQUITO CONTROL BY FISH 27

66. Garcia-Berthou E. Food of introduced mosquito fish:
ontogenetic diet shift and prey selection. J Fish Biol 1999; 55
: 135-47.
67. Hurlbert SH, Mulla MS. Impacts of mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis) predation on plankton communities. Hydrobiologia
1981; 83 : 125-51.
68. Bence JR. Indirect effects and biological control of mosquitoes
by mosquitofish. J Appl Ecol 1988; 25 : 505-21.
69. Hurlbert SH, Zedler J, Fairbanks D. Ecosystem alteration by
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation. Science 1972;
175 : 639-41.
70. Dua VK, Sharma SK. Use of guppy and gambusia fishes for
control of mosquito breeding at BHEL industrial complex,
Hardwar (U.P.). In: Sharma VP, Ghosh A, editors, Larvivorous
fishes of inland ecosystems. Delhi: Malaria Research Centre;
1994. p. 35-42.

Reprint requests: Dr Goutam Chandra, Professor & Former Head, Department of Zoology, Mosquito Research Unit
Parasitology Research Laboratory, University of Burdwan, Burdwan 713104, India
e-mail: goutamchandra63@yahoo.co.in