Vol. 5, Issue 3, Part A (2018)

Fig. 1: Map from the region of Pulicat lake showing the distribution of main streets in Pulicat (left side of Pulicat bridge) and Vairavan Kuppam (right side of Pulicat bridge) © Google Maps, 2016

Fig. 2: Satellite view of Pulicat. Image shows distribution of water masses, households and forest in Pulicat and Vairavan Kuppam © Google Maps, 2015

Fig. 3: Number of larvae and/or pupae present, absent and inaccessible in containers in the 69 surveyed households. Each container type shows the result of indoors (I) and outdoors (O) survey. Container type: CC- cement cistern; CS- coconut shell; DC- discarded container; FP- flower pot; GS- grinding stone; MC- metal container; MD- metal drum; MP- mud pot; OHT- overhead tank; PC- plastic container; PD- plastic drum; TY- tyre; and WL-well

Fig. 4: Number of larvae and/or pupae present, absent and inaccessible in containers in the 69 surveyed households. Each container type shows the combined result of indoors and outdoors survey. Container type: CC- cement cistern; CS- coconut shell; DC- discarded container; FP- flower pot; GS- grinding stone; MC- metal container; MD- metal drum; MP- mud pot; OHT- overhead tank; PC- plastic container; PD- plastic drum; TY- tyre; and WL-well

Fig. 5: Number of containers in which larvae and/or pupae were present, and number of containers in which breeding was not found (results for the total 69 surveyed households). Container type: CC- cement cistern; CS- coconut shell; DC- discarded container; FP- flower pot; GS- grinding stone; MC- metal container; MD- metal drum; MP- mud pot; OHT- overhead tank; PC- plastic container; PD- plastic drum; TY- tyre; and WL-well

Fig. 6: Number of containers showing presence of larvae and/or pupae. Comparison between breeding indoors and outdoors. Container type: CC- cement cistern; CS- coconut shell; DC- discarded container; FP- flower pot; GS- grinding stone; MC- metal container; MD- metal drum; MP- mud pot; OHT- overhead tank; PC- plastic container; PD- plastic drum; TY- tyre; and WL-well

Fig. 7: Per cent distribution of breeding in observed water containers, with distinction between indoors and outdoors (total positive = 18.7%). Values correspond to the total number of containers with larval/pupal presence in the 69 households

Fig. 8: Species and sex composition of sampled adult mosquitoes in the study area