Next Article in Journal
Establishment of Toxicity and Susceptibility Baseline of Broflanilide for Aphis gossypii Glove
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigation of the Sandfly Fauna of Central Arid Areas and Northern Humid Regions of Tunisia, with Morphological and Molecular Identification of the Recently Established Population of Phlebotomus (Larroussius) perfiliewi
Previous Article in Journal
Larvicidal and Antifeedant Effects of Copper Nano-Pesticides against Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) and Its Immunological Response
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Color and Light Intensity on the Foraging and Oviposition Behavior of Culex pipiens biotype molestus Mosquitoes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/insects13111031
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Geometric Morphometric Wing Analysis of Avian Malaria Vector, Culiseta longiareolata, from Two Locations in Algeria

by
Mounir Boumaza
1,2,
Brahim Merabti
3,*,
Yasmine Adjami
1,2,
Mohamed Laid Ouakid
1,2 and
Thaddeus M. Carvajal
4,5,*
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Badji Mokhtar University, B.P. 12, Annaba 23000, Algeria
2
Ecology Laboratory of Marine and Coastal Environments (EMMAL), Badji Mokhtar University, Annaba 23000, Algeria
3
Laboratory of Genetic, Biotechnology and Valorization of Bioresources (LGBVB), University of Biskra, Biskra 07000, Algeria
4
Department of Biology, College of Science, De La Salle University, Manila 1004, Philippines
5
Ehime University-De La Salle University International Collaborative Research Laboratory, Laguna Campus, De La Salle University, Laguna 4024, Philippines
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2022, 13(11), 1031; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111031
Submission received: 14 September 2022 / Revised: 28 October 2022 / Accepted: 3 November 2022 / Published: 8 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vector-Borne Diseases in a Changing World)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Culiseta longiareolata (Macquart 1838) is a cosmopolitan mosquito species and is considered to be an important vector in the transmission of avian malaria, tularemia, and arboviruses. The present study investigates the population structure of Cs. longiareolata from different bioclimatic and larval habitat types using a wing geometric morphometric approach. The main findings of our study showed that these environmental factors shape the population structure of Cs. longiareolata, most especially in male mosquitoes. This further deepens our understanding of how vector mosquitoes such as Cs. longiareolata adapt and thrive in different environmental conditions.

Abstract

The application of geometric morphometry on mosquito wings (Culicidae) is considered a powerful tool for evaluating correlations between the phenotype (e.g., shape) and environmental or genetic variables. However, this has not been used to study the wings of the avian malaria vector, Culiseta longiareolata. Therefore, the goal of this study is to investigate the intra-specific wing variations between male and female Cs. longiareolata populations in different types of larval habitats and climatic conditions in Algeria. A total of 256 Cs. longiareolata mosquito samples were collected from January 2020 to July 2021 in three cities (Annaba, El-Tarf, and Guelma) of northeastern Algeria that have two distinct climatic condition levels (sub-humid and sub-arid) and different types of larval habitats (artificial and natural). Nineteen (19) wing landmarks (LMs) were digitized and analyzed based on geometric morphometry. Our results revealed differences in the wing shape of female and male mosquito populations, indicating sexual dimorphism. Moreover, canonical variance analysis (CVA) showed that factors, such as climatic conditions and type of larval habitats, also affect the wing shape of female and male Cs. longiareolata mosquito populations. Furthermore, the wing shape of male populations was more distinct compared with female populations.

1. Introduction

The mosquito Culiseta longiareolata (Macquart 1838)was first reported in Algeria (North Africa) at the beginning of the 20th century [1]. It was found in all types of natural habitats (e.g.,lagoon depressions, valleys, ditches) throughout the country [2]. It is widely distributed in the south of the Palearctic and Mediterranean regions, as well as in Europe and Asia [3,4].More specifically, they have been found in diverse locations, from freshwater rocks and pools to plastic containers, casks, tire basins, and fountains [5]. They are easily distinguished from other Culiseta species because of their white stripes and the points on their legs, head, and thorax [6]. They aggregate in agricultural and urban areas and have been described as an ornithophilic species that rarely bite humans [7,8,9,10]. However, previous studies have reported that this mosquito species could be a possible vector of the bacteria that cause Malta fever (brucellosis) [11] and westernencephalitis virus [12].
Environmental conditions, including important climatic variables, affect the distribution and abundance of many mosquito species, including those of concern to human health [13].For example, Aedes albopictus mosquitoes found in urban sites were observed to have decreased larval survival, smaller body sizes, and lower per capita growth rates compared with those in rural sites [14]. On the other hand, Culex pipiens mosquitoes were seen to have an increased adult density and longer breeding season in areas that have higher temperatures [15]. To date, there is little information about the impact of environmental factors on the growth and phenotype of emerging Cs. longiareolata adults when compared with other mosquito species. Therefore, knowledge regarding the relationship between habitats, environmental factors, and mosquito plasticity is essential for developing effective mosquito control methods.
Shape analysis is an approach that allows for a better understanding of the different causes of variation and morphological transformation [16] in organisms. Studying the biological shape or phenotype of these insects will allow us to understand the ecological, developmental, and genetic alterations of insects in changing environmental conditions. Previous studies have demonstrated that insect wings provide a link between phenotype and the environment using geometric morphometry [17,18]. More specifically, studies on Aedes albopictus [19], Anopheles darling [20], and Aedes aegypti [21] have all demonstrated that there are variations in mosquito populations that are influenced by environmental factors, manifesting in sexual dimorphism, differences in wing shape, and variations in size.
There are limited studies on the avian malaria vector, Cs. longiareolata. This study is the first to report its microevolution using geometric morphometry. The primary aim of the study is to determine the intra-specific wing variation between male and female Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes in different climatic and larval habitat types.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Algeria is in the north of Africa, with a surface of 2382 million km2. The collection of mosquito samples was conducted between January (2020) and July (2021) in thirteen areas distributed in three cities: Annaba (36°54′ N, 07°44′ E), El-Tarf (36°45′ N, 8°18′ E), and Guelma (36°14′ N, 07°15′ E) (Figure 1). The country has six different climatic zones: hyper-humid, humid, sub-humid, sub-arid, arid, and Saharian [22,23,24]. Table S1 shows the information regarding mosquitoes collected by locality, geographic coordinates, climate, weather data from actual sampling year, larval habitat nature, and sex.
The city of Guelma is considered sub-arid. The mosquito samples were taken in Ain Makhlouf, where temperatures reach 10.33 °C and 26.1 °C in the winter and summer, respectively [25], while the annual precipitation is 484.37 mm, and the average humidity is 63%.
The cities of Annaba and El-Tarf are considered sub-humid. Annaba has an average temperature of 18.4 °C throughout the year, The warmest month is August (30.3 °C), and the coldest month is February, with an average temperature of 14.3 °C. The average humidity is 70.41%, and its precipitation averages 712 mm (650 and 1000 mm/year) per year [26]. On the other hand, El-Tarf has a mean temperature of 12 °C and 28 °C during winter and summer, respectively, and its mean annual precipitation reaches 700 mm [27]. The average humidity is 70%. The month with the highest relative humidity is March (76%), and the month with the lowest relative humidity is July (60%).

2.2. Mosquitoes Sampling and Identification

For this study, 256 immature stages were sampled simultaneously from 35 collection sitesfrom January (2020) until July (2021) in two different climatic zones using a standard dipper described by Papierok et al. [28] in artificial and natural larval habitats. Artificial larval habitats included animal water dishes, bottles, and 200 L tanks, while natural larval habitats included ground pools, ditches, and swamps. The average distance between the collection sites in the two sub-humid and sub-arid bioclimatic zones is between 80 and 110 km, respectively. L4 larvae and pupae were selected and placed in a plastic pan (500 mL) with their original water containing organic material until reared to adults. No additional larval food was introduced for rearing. Species identification and sex determination were performed using the Mediterranean African Culicidae software [29] and the dichotomous key of the Culicidae of Morocco [30].

2.3. Wing Preparation

The rightwing of each male and female mosquito was detached from the thorax and processed following the protocol described by Lorenz and Suesdek [31], with some modifications. Each wing was bathed using 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) for 20 min. The scales were removed from the wings using cotton swabs, followed by a 99.5% ethanol wash. Afterward, the wings were bathed in an acid fuchsin solution for 1 h and then washed with 70% ethanol twice. Finally, the wings were mounted between a slide and a cover slip with a drop of Euparal© mounting medium (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany). The mounted wings were photographed using a camera(SI 3000 version I8, Warpsgrove Ln, Chalgrove OX44 7XZ, UK) with a 10× magnification on a stereoscopic microscope (CETI Steddy Stereo Trinocular Microscope, Warpsgrove Ln, Chalgrove OX44 7XZ, UK). In total, 19 landmarks (LMs) [32] were identified and digitized using Tps Dig2 (V2.31) software [33] to generate the Cartesian coordinates in two dimensions for each individual mosquito (Supplemental Table S2, Supplemental Figure S1).

2.4. Data Analysis

The measurement error was tested by comparing three sets of digitization as described by Arnqvist [34]. This test was performed on 256 individual wing images three times by the same researcher. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were applied to compute the variation among replicate measurements and to evaluate the computed wing size and shape of Cs. longiareolata varied across the three landmark collections.
To determine the wing size variation, an isometric estimator, known as the centroid size, was computed from the 19 landmarks [35]. The centroid sizes between males and females based on their climatic and larval habitat factors were subjected to comparative analysis using a parametric T-test, Kruskal–Wallis test with a post hoc analysis, and a Mann–Whitney test with Bonferroni correction using the SPSS V23.0 software [36]. Centroid sizes were visualized by using a box-and-whisker diagram to indicate the significant differences among the comparisons. An allometric effect of the wing size on the wing shape was also performed for both males and females using a multivariate regression analysis of the Procrustes coordinate of wing centroid size. The statistical significance of the allometric effect was determined by non-parametric permutation testing with 10,000 randomizations.
To determine the wing shape variation, a generalized least-squares Procrustes superimposition algorithm was performed [37]. Covariance matrices were generated for each superimposed dataset to allow for the exploration of variations via the principal component analysis (PCA). The canonical variate analysis (CVA) with a permutation of 10,000 randomizations was carried out to test the pairwise Mahalanobis distances (MD) between or among the different groups of males and females based on their climate and larval habitats. Thin-plate spline and wireframe diagrams [35,38] were generated to explore the intra-specific wing shape variation influenced by climate and natural larval habitats in male and female mosquito populations. The analyses of wing size and shape were all conducted using the MorphoJ software version 1.07 [39].

3. Results

3.1. Repeatability of Landmarks and Test for Allometry

Three measurements of the size and shape of male and female Cs. longiareolata wings showed good precision in the digitization of the landmarks: size (Male: F = 0.04; P = 0.95; Female: F = 0.69; P = 0.59) and shape (Male: F = 0.44, Pillai’s trace = 0.33, P = 1.00; Females: F= 0.79, Pillai’s trace = 0.39, P = 0.79). This indicates that the differences found in the morphology of the wings are due to climatic and habitat factors, not from measurement error. Moreover, the results of the allometry indicate that the wing shape variance explained by size was 23.21% for female and 19% for male mosquitoes. Lastly, our analysis revealed the contribution of the centroid size to the variation in the wing shape of Cs. longiareolata was significant (p < 0.0001) for both sexes. Therefore, we removed the allometric effect from all analyses to analyze the wing size and shape separately.

3.2. Sexual Dimorphism

The wing centroid size in the male mosquito population varied from 3.21 mm to 4.92 mm, while the female mosquito population varied from 3.81 mm to 6.72 mm (Figure 2a). Further analysis also showed that the wing centroid sizes between male and female mosquito populations were significantly different from each other (t = 10.24; p < 0.0001).
Figure 2b shows the canonical variate analysis (CVA) plot where the wing shape of male and female mosquito populations was distinctly separate (MD = 7.42; p < 0.0001). Additionally, thin-plate splines (Figure 3a) demonstrated that the shape of the male wings was narrow and lengthened, while the female wings were wider and shorter (Figure 3b). Landmarks 2 (intersection of costa), 16 (radio-sectoral vein), and 19 (origin of radius branches 2 and 3) appeared to be the most important landmarks in the shape difference between males and females.

3.3. The Effect of Sub-Arid and Sub-Humid Climatic Conditions

Figure 4a shows the centroid sizes of sub-arid and sub-humid female mosquito populations. Further analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the female wing centroid sizes between the two climatic conditions. However, the CVA plot indicated that the wing shape of female mosquitoes in sub-arid and female mosquitoes in sub-humid climatic conditions was distinct (MD = 1.57; p < 0.0001) (Figure 4b).
The results were the same with the male populations. No significant differences were found in their wing centroid sizes between sub-arid and sub-humid climatic conditions (Figure 4c), and the CVA plot indicated a degree of distinction between the two climatic conditions (MD = 2.81; p < 0.0001) (Figure 4d).

3.4. The Effect of Natural and Artificial Larval Habitats

No significant differences were found in the wing centroid sizes between female mosquito populations from natural and artificial larval habitats (Figure 5a). However, the CVA plot revealed significant differences in the wing shape of females from natural and artificial larval habitats (MD = 1.68; p < 0.0001) (Figure 5b).On the other hand, there were no significant differences in the wing centroid sizes between male mosquito populations from natural and artificial larval habitats (Figure 5c). However, a significant distinction in wing shape was found in males from natural and artificial larval habitats (MD = 2.12; p < 0.0001) (Figure 5d).

3.5. Combined Effect of Larval Habitat and Climatic Conditions in the Wing Size and Shape

In females, it was revealed that there were significant differences in wing sizes depending on the factors of climatic patterns and type of larval habitats (X2 = 74.48, df = 3, p < 0.000) (Figure 6a). Post hoc analysis showed significant differences among all groups except for female populations from artificial larval habitats in the sub-arid climate (A.A) and natural larval habitats in the sub-humid climate (N.H). In males, the results also showed that there were significant differences in wing sizes (X2 = 32.58, df = 3, p < 0.000) (Figure 6b) depending on the factors of climatic patterns and type of larval habitats. Post hoc analysis showed significant differences among all groups except for male populations from artificial larval habitats in the sub-arid climate (A.A) and natural larval habitats in the sub-humid climate (N.H).
The results for wing shape showed significantly structured populations based on climatic patterns and type of larval habitats in female (F = 2.05; Pillai’s trace = 1.02; p < 0.0001) and male (F = 1.82; Pillai’s trace = 1.67; p < 0.0001) mosquitoes. Furthermore, CVA plots indicated that the wing shape of male populations based on the two factors was more distinct compared with that of females (Figure 6c,d).

4. Discussion

4.1. Sexual Dimorphism

Previous studies have demonstrated the sexual dimorphism of wing size and shape analyses in insects [40,41,42], especially in the Culicidae species [19,43,44,45,46,47,48]. However, this is the first study that demonstrated sexual dimorphism in Cs. longiareolata using wing size and shape. More specifically, the wing shape of male Cs. longiareolata was narrow and long, while female wings were wider and shorter. The highest differences between female and male wing shapes were found in the middle and distal regions of the wing (LMs2, 16, and 19) based on thin-plate splines. Our findings are consistent with the observation of other mosquito species such as Aedes [19,43,49,50,51], Anopheles [52], and Culex [44,53,54].
These differences could be attributed to the important role of wing shape in reproductive functions in that it increases performance in flight-based mating tactics [55]. As evidenced by scrambling damselflies (Lestes sponsa), males with broader and shorter forewings had better mating success [56]. Moreover, mosquito wing geometry is involved in species-specific wing beat frequencies that mediate different mating behaviors [57], as seen in the production of courtship sounds in Orthoptera species [58]. Changes in wing shape are also influenced by the environment and impact their ability to locate oviposition sites [59], which affects their reproductive capacity.
The adaptation of each sex to various reproductive functions is reflected in sexual size dimorphism [60]. A female mosquito’s big wings could be attributed to long-distance dispersal because of its host-seeking behavior. Interestingly, the average wing length of nulliparous host-seeking females was significantly smaller than the wing length of parous host-seeking females [59,61].On the other hand, the small-sized wing in males could be attributed to their short development time, resulting in smaller body size [19] and their short-distance dispersal by remaining near larval habitats in seeking mating partners [45,49,51,62]. The female body size has also been associated with its capacity as a vector for diseases [60], and it has been shown that a population of mosquitoes with a large average body size may have a higher vector capacity than a population with a small average body size.

4.2. Effects of the Climatic Conditions and Larval Habitats

In both sexes, our study showed that the wing shape of Cs. longiareolata in sub-arid populations was distinct from that in sub-humid populations. The influence of climatic conditions could be attributed to one or a combination of several factors, including temperature, humidity, and precipitation. Other environmental factors such as different microhabitats [63], environmental heterogeneity of the geographical area [50], and climatic effects (such as temperature) [64] could have also influenced these results. Studies on damselflies [65], Drosophila melanogaster [66], and Drosophila willistoni [67] have reported that temperature has a strong influence on the wing shape of these insects. Other studies on other mosquito species such as Cx. coronator [68], Anopheles albimanus [69], An. funestus [70], and An. superpictus [71] also support this notion that climate plays a role in shaping the wings of many insect populations.
In addition, our results indicated that there were no significant changes in wing sizes between the two climatic conditions for both sexes despite the differences in rainfall and mean air temperature. This may be due to the latitude of the locations where the mosquitoes originated. Generally, insects react to environmental conditions according to James’s rule (increase in body size with latitude or decrease in temperature) or Bergmann’s rule (the size decreases with latitude, as a consequence of a shorter favorable season and an increase in developmental metabolism) [19]. In our study, the sampling sites had two different bioclimatic levels but belonged to the same latitude. Unfortunately, our analysis only measured the mosquito’s wings. As a result, we were unable to verify this claim, leaving the door open for future research. However, Gómez and Márquez [68] posited that relative humidity (RH) and elevation could explain the variation in centroid sizes. For various mosquito models, the influence of RH on centroid size has been described [72,73]. Rainfall differences have also been reported to alter the centroid size of An. colzzii in Burkina Faso [74] and Aedes albopictus in central Argentina [75]. These studies all support the claim that RH (and possibly, elevation) can affect centroid size.
On top of that, larval habitats and larval competition have been reported to affect the body size of mosquitoes [71,73,76]. In this study, differences were observed in male and female wing shapes between mosquitoes found in natural and artificial larval habitats, which is consistent with Anopheles cruzii [77], Ae. albopictus, and Ae. aegypti [78,79]. The density, plant material, and competitive pressure in urban larval habitats can likewise affect the development of the larvae. This is supported by a study that showed that water containing more plant material accelerates Ae. albopictus larvae development [80,81].In this study, no significant differences in the Cs. longiareolata wing sizes were found between natural and artificial larval habitats for both sexes. Stephens and Juliano [82] suggested that the relationship between size and rearing conditions differed between the species and that size could not be used to determine larval rearing conditions. However, Oliveira-Christe and Wilke [83] suggested that the variations found in wing size may be related to the intrinsic characteristics of larval habitats, such as temperature, water physicochemical parameters, and food availability. The temperature during rearing could also likely affect the survival and development of immature larvae and adults [84].
Furthermore, our findings indicate that there were significant differences in wing sizes and shapes depending on the factors of climatic patterns and type of larval habitats for both sexes, except between male and female populations from artificial larval habitats in the sub-arid climate (A.A) and natural larval habitats in the sub-humid climate (N.H). This may be related to several ecological, morphological, and physiological factors specific to Diptera in general. Rapid deformations in wings would surely affect the rate and distance of insect dispersion and would exert pressure on the energy required for flying. This could then impact other ecological parameters, such as the success of finding mates, the kinematics of flying, dispersal, and pressure from predators [71].

4.3. Limitations

This study revealed phenotypic variations among the populations of Cs. longiareolata located in sub-humid and sub-arid regions including its larval habitat variability factors; however, there were several limitations that should be considered. First is the uneven number of mosquito samples of each sex and its corresponding environmental factors. The study tested a small number of male mosquitoes (8–42 individuals), compared with their female counterparts (18–76 individuals). The uneven sample sizes were also found in natural larval habitat mosquitoes (8–38 individuals) and artificial larval habitat mosquitoes (20–76 individuals) as well as sub-arid mosquitoes (8–35 individuals) and sub-humid mosquitoes (18–76 individuals). Therefore, the results inferred by this study could likely affect the phenotypic diversity of each population. The authors suggest that future studies should consider even sample sizes to validate our findings. Moreover, no information about factors such as larval density, water temperature, and availability of food was collected from larval habitats; therefore, we were unable to predict or estimate the magnitude of the effect of these variables on wing size. It should be noted that future studies should take into consideration these other factors as well.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects13111031/s1, Figure S1: Digitization of 19 landmarks of the rightwing of a female Culiseta longiareolata using software Tps-Dig2 2.31; Table S1: Information of Cs. longiareolata mosquito samples from each study area. The weather data from the actual sampling year, altitude, geographic coordinates, type of climate, type of habitat, and the number of mosquito individuals per sex; Table S2: Corresponding description and location of the wing and landmark positions in Cs. longiareolata.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B., B.M. and T.M.C.; methodology, M.B., B.M., Y.A. and M.L.O.; analysis, M.B., B.M., Y.A., M.L.O. and T.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, B.M. and T.M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available because no available repository is available to deposit the dataset.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to all the people who have contributed directly or indirectly to this study. Many thanks are due to the laboratory staff of the Ecology Laboratory of Marine and Coastal environments (EMMAL) at Badji Mokhtar University, the Laboratory of Genetic, Biotechnology, and Valorization of Bioresources (LGBVB), the University of Biskra for their help in the experimental part, and our collaborators from Ehime University-De La Salle University International Collaborative Research Laboratory in creating the survey map of the study area.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sergent, E.; Sergent, É. Observations sur les moustiques des environs d’Alger. Ann. Inst. Pasteur. 1903, 17, 60–67. [Google Scholar]
  2. Merabti, B.; Lebouz, I.; Adamou, A.; Kouidri, M.; Ouakid, M. Effects of certain natural breeding site characteristics on the distribution of Culicidae (Diptera) mosquito species in southeast Algeria. Afr. Entomol. 2017, 25, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Van Pletzen, R.; Van Der Linde, T.D.K. Studies on the biology of Culiseta longiareolata (Macquart)(Diptera: Culicidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 1981, 71, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Azari-Hami, S.; Abai, M.; Arzamani, K.; Bakhshi, H.; Karami, H.; Ladonni, H.; Harbach, R. Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of North Khorasan Province, northeastern Iran and the zoogeographic affinities of the Iranian and middle Asian mosquito fauna. J. Entomol. 2011, 8, 204–217. [Google Scholar]
  5. Schaffner, F.; Gatt, P.; Mall, S.; Maroli, M.; Spiteri, G.; Melillo, T.; Zeller, H. Mosquitoes in Malta: Preliminary entomological investigation and risk assessment for vector-borne diseases (Diptera: Culicidae). Bull. Entomol. Soc. Malta 2010, 3, 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  6. Khaligh, F.G.; Naghian, A.; Soltanbeiglou, S.; Gholizadeh, S. Autogeny in Culiseta longiareolata (Culicidae: Diptera) mosquitoes in laboratory conditions in Iran. BMC Res. Notes 2020, 13, 81. [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker, N.; Petric, D.; Zgomba, M.; Boase, C.; Madon, M.; Dahl, C.; Kaiser, A. Mosquitoes and Their Contro, 2nd ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. González, M.A.; Prosser, S.W.; Hernández-Triana, L.M.; Alarcón-Elbal, P.M.; Goiri, F.; López, S.; Ruiz-Arrondo, I.; Hebert, P.D.N.; García-Pérez, A.L. Avian feeding preferences of Culex pipiens and Culiseta spp. along an urban-to-wild gradient in northern Spain. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8, 568835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. La Puente, J.M.-D.; Soriguer, R.; Senar, J.C.; Figuerola, J.; Bueno-Mari, R.; Montalvo, T. Mosquitoes in an Urban Zoo: Identification of Blood Meals, Flight Distances of Engorged Females, and Avian Malaria Infections. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Toma, L.; Severini, F.; Romi, R.; Goffredo, M.; Torina, A.; Di Luca, M. Checklist of the mosquito species from four Sicilian Islands: Lampedusa, Linosa, Ustica and Pantelleria. J. Entomol. Acarol. Res. 2020, 52, 8968. [Google Scholar]
  11. Maslov, A.V.; Ward, R.A. Blood-Sucking Mosquitoes of the Subtribe Culisetina (Diptera, Culicidae) in World Fauna. Smithsonian Institution Libraries. 1989. Available online: https://archive.org/details/bloodsuckingmosq00masl/mode/2up (accessed on 20 August 2010).
  12. Maslov, A.V. Krovososushchie Komary Podtriby Culisetina (Diptera, Culicidae) Mirovoi Fauny; Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, Izdavaemye Zoologicheskim, Instittutom Akademii Nauk SSSR, No. 93; Nauka Publishers: Leningrad, Russia, 1967; Volume 182, p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kearney, M.; Porter, W.P.; Williams, C.; Ritchie, S.; Hoffmann, A.A. Integrating biophysical models and evolutionary theory to predict climatic impacts on species’ ranges: The dengue mosquito Aedes aegypti in Australia. Funct. Ecol. 2009, 23, 528–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Murdock, C.C.; Evans, M.V.; McClanahan, T.D.; Miazgowicz, K.L.; Tesla, B. Fine-scale variation in microclimate across an urban landscape shapes variation in mosquito population dynamics and the potential of Aedes albopictus to transmit arboviral disease. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, 0005640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Marini, G.; Poletti, P.; Giacobini, M.; Pugliese, A.; Merler, S.; Rosà, R. The Role of Climatic and Density Dependent Factors in Shaping Mosquito Population Dynamics: The Case of Culex pipiens in Northwestern Italy. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, 0154018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zelditch, M.L.; Swiderski, D.L.; Sheets, H.D. Geometric Morphometrics of Biologists: A Primer, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: Waltham, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  17. Debat, V.; Béagin, M.; Legout, H.; David, J.R. Allometric and nonallometric components of Drosophila wing shape respond differently to developmental temperature. Evolution 2003, 57, 2773–2784. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hoffmann, A.A.; Woods, R.E.; Collins, E.; Wallin, K.; White, A.; McKenzie, J.A. Wing shape versus asymmetry as an indicator of changing environmental conditions in insects. Aust. J. Entomol. 2005, 44, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Garzón, M.J.; Schweigmann, N. Wing morphometrics of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) albifasciatus (Macquart, 1838) (Diptera: Culicidae) from different climatic regions of Argentina. Parasit. Vectors 2018, 11, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Motoki, M.T.; Suesdek, L.; Bergo, E.S.; Sallum, M.A.M. Wing geometry of Anopheles darlingi Root (Diptera: Culicidae) in five major Brazilian ecoregions. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2012, 12, 1246–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carvajal, T.M.; Ho, H.; Hernandez, L.F.; Viacrusis, K.; Amalin, D.; Watanabe, K. An Ecological Context Toward Understanding Dengue Disease Dynamics in Urban Cities: A Case Study in Metropolitan Manila, Philippines, in Health in Ecological Perspectives in the Anthropocene; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 117–131. [Google Scholar]
  22. Daget, P. Le bioclimatméditerranéen: Analyse des formesclimatiques par le systèmed’Emberger. J. Veg. 1977, 34, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Le Houerou, H.N.; Hoste, C.H. Rangeland production and annual rainfall relations in the Mediterranean Basin and in the African SaheloSudanian zone. J. Range Manag. 1977, 30, 181–189. [Google Scholar]
  24. Semahi, S.; Zemmouri, N.; Singh, M.K.; Attia, S. Comparative bioclimatic approach for comfort and passive heating and cooling strategies in Algeria. Built. Environ. 2019, 161, 106271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Layadi, M.; Hireche, H.; Djorfi, S.E. L’apport des Conditions Hydroclimatologiques dans L’étude du Contextehydrogéologique des Sources d’eau de la Régiond’ainmakhlouf, (Wilaya de Guelma); Université de Jijel: Jijel, Algeria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chemam, A.; Hadjzobir, S.; Daif, M.; Altenberger, U.; Günter, C. Provenance analyses of the heavy-mineral beach sands of the Annaba coast, northeast Algeria, and their consequences for the evaluation of fossil placer deposit. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 127, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Ouchene-Khelifi, N.; Ouchene, N.; Dahmani, H.; Dahmani, A.; Sadi, M.; Douifi, M. Fasciolosis due to Fasciola hepatica in ruminants in abattoirs and its economic impact in two regions in Algeria. Trop. Biomed. 2018, 35, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Papierok, B.; Croset, H.; Rioux, J.A. Estimation de l’effectif des populations larvaires d’Aedes (O.) cataphylla Dyar, 1916 (Diptera, Culicidae): 2. Méthode utilisant le “coup de louche” ou “dipping”. Sér. Ent. Med. Parasitol. 1975, 13, 47–51. [Google Scholar]
  29. Brunhes, J.; Rhaim, A.; Geoffroy, B.; Angel, G.; Hervy, J.J.M. Frensh, The mosquitoes of Mediterranean Africa: CD-ROM of Identification and Teaching Software; Research Institute for Development: Paris, France, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  30. Himmi, O.; Dakki, M.; Trari, B.; Agbani, M.A. Les Culicidae du Maroc:Clésd’identification, avec donnéesbiologiques et écologiques. Série Zool. Rabat 1995, 44, 1–51. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lorenz, C.; Suesdek, L. Evaluation of Chemical Preparation on Insect Wing Shape for Geometric Morphometrics. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2013, 89, 928–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Lorenz, C.; Almeida, F.; Almeida-Lopes, F.; Louise, C.; Pereira, S.N.; Petersen, V.; Vidal, P.O.; Virginio, F.; Suesdek, L. Geometric morphometrics in mosquitoes: What has been measured? Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 54, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rohlf, F.J. tpsDig, Digitize Landmarks and Outlines, Version 2.31; Stony Brook; Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. Arnqvist, G.; Mårtensson, T. Measurement error in geometric morphometrics: Empirical strategies to assess and reduce its impact on measures of shape. Acta Zool Acad. Sci. Hung. 1998, 44, 73–96. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zelditch, M.L.; Swiderski, D.L.; Sheets, H.D. A Practical Companion to Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: Running Analyses in Freely-Available Software. Available online: http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780123869036/content/Workbook.pdf2012 (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  36. SPSS. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  37. Adams, D.C.; Rohlf, F.J.; Slice, D.E. Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital. J. Zool. 2004, 71, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bookstein, F.L. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med. Image Anal. 1997, 1, 225–243. [Google Scholar]
  39. Klingenberg, C.P. MorphoJ: An integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2011, 11, 353–357. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilchrist, G.W.; Huey, R.B. Plastic and Genetic Variation in Wing Loading as a Function of Temperature Within and Among Parallel Clines in Drosophila subobscura. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2004, 44, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Siomava, N.; Wimmer, E.A.; Posnien, N. Extensive sexual wing shape dimorphism in Drosophila melanogaster, Ceratitis capitata, and Musca domestica. BioRxiv 2017, 135749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kelly, C.D. Size and shape assortative mating in Japanese beetles (Popillia japonica). Behav. Ecol. 2020, 31, 1073–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Devicari, M.; Lopes, A.R.; Suesdek, L. Dimorfismo sexual alar em Aedes scapularis (Diptera: Culicidae). Biota Neotrop. 2011, 11, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Vidal, P.O.; Peruzin, M.C.; Suesdek, L. Wing diagnostic characters for Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex nigripalpus (Diptera, Culicidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2011, 55, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wormington, J.D.; Juliano, S.A. Sexually dimorphic body size and development time plasticity in Aedes mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Evol. Ecol. Res. 2014, 16, 223–234. [Google Scholar]
  46. Virginio, F.; Vidal, P.O.; Suesdek, L. Wing sexual dimorphism of pathogen-vector culicids. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 159. [Google Scholar]
  47. Carvajal, T.M.; Amalin, D.M.; Watanabe, K. Watanabe, Wing geometry and genetic analyses reveal contrasting spatial structures between male and female Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) populations in metropolitan Manila, Philippines. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2021, 87, 104676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. López-Mercadal, J.; Wilke, A.B.B.; Barceló, C.; Miranda, M.A. Evidence of Wing Shape Sexual Dimorphism in Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus in Mallorca, Spain. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 569034. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vidal, P.O.; Carvalho, E.; Suesdek, L. Temporal variation of wing geometry in Aedes albopictus. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 2012, 107, 1030–1034. [Google Scholar]
  50. Carvajal, T.M.; Hernandez, L.F.T.; Ho, H.T.; Cuenca, M.G.; Orantia, B.M.C.; Estrada, C.R.; Viacrusis, K.M.; Amalin, D.M.; Watanabe, K. Spatial analysis of wing geometry in dengue vector mosquito, Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae), populations in Metropolitan Manila, Philippines. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2016, 53, 127–135. [Google Scholar]
  51. Christe, R.O.; Wilke, A.B.B.; Vidal, P.O.; Marrelli, M.T. Wing sexual dimorphism in Aedes fluviatilis (Diptera: Culicidae). Infect. Genet. Evol. 2016, 45, 434–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Chaiphongpachara, T.; Laojun, S. Variation over time in wing size and shape of the coastal malaria vector Anopheles (Cellia) epiroticus Linton and Harbach (Diptera: Culicidae) in Samut Songkhram, Thailand. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2019, 6, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Manimegalai, K.; Arunachalam, M. Udayakumari, Morphometric geometric study of wing shape in Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) from Tamil Nadu, India. J. Threat. Taxa 2009, 1, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Dhivya, R.; Manimegalai, K. Wing shape analysis of the Japanese encephalitis vector Culex gelidus (Diptera: Culicidae) at the Foot Hill of southern western Ghats, India. World J. Zool. 2013, 8, 119–125. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wiklund, C. Sexual selection and the evolution of butterfly mating systems. In Butterflies; Ecology and Evolution Taking Flight; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003; pp. 67–90. [Google Scholar]
  56. Outomuro, D.; Söderquist, L.; Nilsson-Örtman, V.; Cortázar-Chinarro, M.; Lundgren, C.; Johansson, F. Antagonistic natural and sexual selection on wing shape in a scrambling damselfly. Evolution 2016, 70, 1582–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sanford, M.R.; Demirci, B.; Marsden, C.D.; Lee, Y.; Cornel, A.J.; Lanzaro, G.C. Morphological Differentiation May Mediate Mate-Choice between Incipient Species of Anopheles gambiae ss. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, 27920. [Google Scholar]
  58. Klingenberg, C.P.; Debat, V.; Roff, D.A. Quantitative genetics of shape in cricket wings: Developmental integration in a functional structure. Evol. Int. J. Org. Evol. 2010, 64, 2935–2951. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yeap, H.L.; Endersby, N.M.; Johnson, P.H.; Ritchie, S.A.; Hoffmann, A.A. Body size and wing shape measurements as quality indicators of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes destined for field release. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2013, 89, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fairbairn, D.J. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1997, 28, 659–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nasci, R.S. The size of emerging and host-seeking Aedes aegypti and the relation of size to blood-feeding success in the field. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1986, 2, 61–62. [Google Scholar]
  62. Vidal, P.O.; Suesdek, L. Comparison of wing geometry data and genetic data for assessing the population structure of Aedes aegypti. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2012, 12, 591–596. [Google Scholar]
  63. Parker, A.T.; Gardner, A.M.; Perez, M.; Allan, B.F.; Muturi, E.J. Container Size Alters the Outcome of Interspecific Competition Between Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and Aedes albopictus. J. Med. Entomol. 2019, 56, 708–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Phanitchat, T.; Apiwathnasorn, C.; Sungvornyothin, S.; Samung, Y.; Dujardin, S.; Dujardin, J.-P.; Sumruayphol, S. Geometric morphometric analysis of the effect of temperature on wing size and shape in Aedes albopictus. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2019, 33, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hassall, C. Strong geographical variation in wing aspect ratio of a damselfly, Calopteryx maculata (Odonata: Zygoptera). Peer J. 2015, 3, e1219. [Google Scholar]
  66. Azevedo, R.B.R.; James, A.C.; McCabe, J.; Partridge, L. Latitudinal variation of wing: Thorax size ratio and wing-aspect ratio in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 1998, 52, 1353–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Machida, W.; Tidon, R.; Klaczko, J. Wing plastic response to temperature variation in two distantly related Neotropical Drosophila species (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Can. J. Zool. 2021, 100, 82–89. [Google Scholar]
  68. Demari-Silva, B.; Suesdek, L.; Sallum, M.A.M.; Marrelli, M.T. Wing geometry of Culex coronator (Diptera: Culicidae) from south and southeast Brazil. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 174. [Google Scholar]
  69. Gómez, G.F.; Márquez, E.J.; Gutiérrez, L.A.; Conn, J.E.; Correa, M.M. Geometric morphometric analysis of Colombian Anopheles albimanus (Diptera: Culicidae) reveals significant effect of environmental factors on wing traits and presence of a metapopulation. Acta Trop. 2014, 135, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Ayala, D.; Caro-Riaño, H.; Dujardin, J.-P.; Rahola, N.; Simard, F.; Fontenille, D. Chromosomal and environmental determinants of morphometric variation in natural populations of the malaria vector Anopheles funestus in Cameroon. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2011, 11, 940–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Aytekin, S.; Aytekin, A.M.; Alten, B. Effect of different larval rearing temperatures on the productivity (R o) and morphology of the malaria vector Anopheles superpictus Grassi (Diptera: Culicidae) using geometric morphometrics. J. Vector Ecol. 2009, 34, 32–42. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kennington, W.J.; Killeen, J.R.; Goldstein, D.B.; Partridge, L. Rapid laboratory evolution of adult wing area in Drosophila melanogaster in response to humidity. Evolution 2003, 57, 932–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Vargas, R.E.M.; Ya-Umphan, P.; Phumala-Morales, N.; Komalamisra, N.; Dujardin, J.-P. Climate associated size and shape changes in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) populations from Thailand. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2010, 10, 580–585. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hidalgo, K.; Dujardin, J.-P.; Mouline, K.; Dabiré, R.K.; Renault, D.; Simard, F. Seasonal variation in wing size and shape between geographic populations of the malaria vector, Anopheles coluzzii in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Acta Trop. 2015, 143, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gleiser, R.M.; Urrutia, J.; Gorla, D.E. Body size variation of the floodwater mosquito Aedes albifasciatus in Central Argentina. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2000, 14, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Alto, B.W.; Juliano, S.A. Precipitation and temperature effects on populations of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae): Implications for range expansion. J. Med. Entomol. 2001, 38, 646–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Multini, L.C.; Wilke, A.B.B.; Marrelli, M.T. Urbanization as a driver for temporal wing-shape variation in Anopheles cruzii (Diptera: Culicidae). Acta Trop. 2019, 190, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
  78. Sendaydiego, J.P.; Torres, M.A.J.; Demayo, C.G. Describing wing geometry of Aedes aegypti using landmark-based geometric morphometrics. Int. J. Biosci. Biochem. Bioinform. 2013, 3, 379. [Google Scholar]
  79. Damiens, D.; Lebon, C.; Wilkinson, D.A.; Dijoux-Millet, D.; Le Goff, G.; Bheecarry, A.; Gouagna, L.C. Cross-Mating Compatibility and Competitiveness among Aedes albopictus Strains from Distinct Geographic Origins-Implications for Future Application of SIT Programs in the South West Indian Ocean Islands. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, 0163788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Strickman, D.; Kittayapong, P. Dengue and its vectors in Thailand: Calculated transmission risk from total pupal counts of Aedes aegypti and association of wing-length measurements with aspects of the larval habitat. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2003, 68, 209–217. [Google Scholar]
  81. Darriet, F. Development of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae feeding on the plant material contained in the water. Ann. Community Med. Pract. 2016, 2, 1014. [Google Scholar]
  82. Stephens, C.R.; Juliano, S.A. Wing shape as an indicator of larval rearing conditions for Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 927–938. [Google Scholar]
  83. Oliveira-Christe, R.; Wilke, A.B.B.; Marrelli, M.T. Microgeographic Wing-Shape Variation in Aedes albopictus and Aedes scapularis (Diptera: Culicidae) Populations. Insects 2020, 11, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Loetti, V.; Schweigmann, N.; Burroni, N. Development rates, larval survivorship and wing length of Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) at constant temperatures. J. Nat. Hist. 2011, 45, 2203–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 13 01031 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographic map of Algeria (left) and its study area as well as sampling sites indicating the sub-humid and sub-arid climate (right).
Figure 1. Geographic map of Algeria (left) and its study area as well as sampling sites indicating the sub-humid and sub-arid climate (right).
Insects 13 01031 g001
Insects 13 01031 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Box diagram of centroid sizes for all females and males; (b) wing shape diagram of first canonical variable from the comparison of all males (blue) and females (red).
Figure 2. (a) Box diagram of centroid sizes for all females and males; (b) wing shape diagram of first canonical variable from the comparison of all males (blue) and females (red).
Insects 13 01031 g002
Insects 13 01031 g003 550
Figure 3. Wireframe diagram from PCA displaying the mean value of wing shape variation in (a) male and (b) female Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes. The light-colored wireframe represents the mean wing shape, while the dark-colored wireframe represents generated principal component analysis for the wing shapes.
Figure 3. Wireframe diagram from PCA displaying the mean value of wing shape variation in (a) male and (b) female Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes. The light-colored wireframe represents the mean wing shape, while the dark-colored wireframe represents generated principal component analysis for the wing shapes.
Insects 13 01031 g003
Insects 13 01031 g004 550
Figure 4. Boxplots of wing centroid size and wing shape diagram of the first canonical variable between sub-humid and sub-arid climatic conditions in female (a,b) and male (c,d) Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes.
Figure 4. Boxplots of wing centroid size and wing shape diagram of the first canonical variable between sub-humid and sub-arid climatic conditions in female (a,b) and male (c,d) Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes.
Insects 13 01031 g004
Insects 13 01031 g005 550
Figure 5. Box plots of wing centroid size and wing shape diagram of the first canonical variable between natural and artificial breeding sites in female (a,b) and male (c,d) Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes.
Figure 5. Box plots of wing centroid size and wing shape diagram of the first canonical variable between natural and artificial breeding sites in female (a,b) and male (c,d) Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes.
Insects 13 01031 g005
Insects 13 01031 g006 550
Figure 6. Boxplots of wing centroid size and wing shape diagram of the first two canonical variables between the interaction of climate and breeding sites in female (a,b) and male (c,d) Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes. Group A.A: Artificial Breeding site, Climate Sub-Arid; Group N.A: Natural Breeding site, Climate Sub-Arid; Group A.H: Artificial Breeding site, Climate Sub-Humid; Group N.H: Natural Breeding site, Climate Sub-Humid.
Figure 6. Boxplots of wing centroid size and wing shape diagram of the first two canonical variables between the interaction of climate and breeding sites in female (a,b) and male (c,d) Cs. longiareolata mosquitoes. Group A.A: Artificial Breeding site, Climate Sub-Arid; Group N.A: Natural Breeding site, Climate Sub-Arid; Group A.H: Artificial Breeding site, Climate Sub-Humid; Group N.H: Natural Breeding site, Climate Sub-Humid.
Insects 13 01031 g006
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Boumaza, M.; Merabti, B.; Adjami, Y.; Ouakid, M.L.; Carvajal, T.M. Geometric Morphometric Wing Analysis of Avian Malaria Vector, Culiseta longiareolata, from Two Locations in Algeria. Insects 2022, 13, 1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111031

AMA Style

Boumaza M, Merabti B, Adjami Y, Ouakid ML, Carvajal TM. Geometric Morphometric Wing Analysis of Avian Malaria Vector, Culiseta longiareolata, from Two Locations in Algeria. Insects. 2022; 13(11):1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boumaza, Mounir, Brahim Merabti, Yasmine Adjami, Mohamed Laid Ouakid, and Thaddeus M. Carvajal. 2022. "Geometric Morphometric Wing Analysis of Avian Malaria Vector, Culiseta longiareolata, from Two Locations in Algeria" Insects 13, no. 11: 1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop