Next Article in Journal
Germination Enhances Phytochemical Profiles of Perilla Seeds and Promotes Hair Growth via 5α-Reductase Inhibition and Growth Factor Pathways
Previous Article in Journal
Romanian Dendrocoelidae Hallez, 1892 (Platyhelminthes, Tricladida, Dendrocoelidae) Revisited: A Tribute to Radu Codreanu and Doina Balcesco
Previous Article in Special Issue
How to Define Spacing Among Forest Trees to Mitigate Competition: A Technical Note
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Contrasted Ethnobotanical and Literature Knowledge of Anti-Mosquito Plants from Guadeloupe

by
Yolène Duchaudé
1,2,
Laura Brelle
1,
Muriel Sylvestre
1,
Anubis Vega-Rúa
2 and
Gerardo Cebrián-Torrejón
1,*
1
COVACHIM-M2E Laboratory, University of Antilles, BP 250, 97157 Pointe à Pitre Cedex, France
2
Vector-Borne Diseases Laboratory, Institut Pasteur de la Guadeloupe-Lieu-Dit Morne Jolivière, 97139 Les Abymes, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2025, 14(7), 888; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14070888
Submission received: 29 May 2025 / Revised: 4 July 2025 / Accepted: 11 July 2025 / Published: 19 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Young Researchers in Plant Sciences)

Simple Summary

Mosquito-borne diseases are a major public health issue, especially in tropical regions like the Caribbean. In Guadeloupe, traditional knowledge about plants has been passed down through generations but remains poorly documented today. This study aimed to record and analyze the medicinal plants used by the local population to fight mosquitoes through a digital survey involving 216 local informants. Based on interviews, several species reputed for their repellent or insecticidal properties were identified from a list of 38 surveyed plants. Our findings provide valuable insights for 22 plants that were confirmed by respondents for their traditional use against mosquitoes. We also identified 12 species that have not previously been reported in the scientific literature for mosquito control. This study highlights the rich but declining traditional knowledge in Guadeloupe and underscores the potential of its flora for developing natural, eco-friendly solutions to help reduce the spread of mosquito-borne diseases.

Abstract

The Aedes aegypti mosquito, vector of dengue, is a major public health threat in the Caribbean. In Guadeloupe, where dengue outbreaks occur frequently, traditional plant-based remedies are part of the local heritage but remain poorly documented. This study aimed to evaluate the anti-mosquito potential of 38 Guadeloupean plants through an ethnobotanical survey. A semi-structured online questionnaire was conducted over five months, targeting the plant knowledge of residents. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to identify and validate relevant species. Ethnobotanical indices such as Frequency of Citation (FC), Fidelity Level (FL), and Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) were calculated. Out of the 38 surveyed plants, 22 were confirmed for their traditional anti-mosquito uses. The most cited species included Cymbopogon citratus (93.3%), Artocarpus altilis (25%), and Pimenta racemosa (18.3%). Comparative analysis with existing literature showed that 12 of these plants had not been previously reported for vector control. This highlights the value of ethnobotanical approaches for discovering alternative, eco-friendly vector control options and the importance of preserving traditional knowledge. The study reveals both the high potential of Guadeloupean flora and the risk of cultural erosion, supporting further research into the bioactive compounds of the most cited species.

1. Introduction

Arboviral diseases, including Chikungunya, Dengue, and Zika, transmitted by the infected female vector Aedes aegypti, constitute a major public health concern worldwide [1,2,3]. Among these, Dengue, caused by dengue virus (DENV), is currently endemic in tropical and subtropical regions, thus exposing all inhabitants of Africa, Europe, Oceania, and the Americas [2,4]. Dengue symptoms are often mild and vary from patient to patient, but more severe outcomes (i.e., haemorrhagic fever) can also occur and lead to death [5]. In 2023, reported cases of Dengue fever reached an all-time high value, with more than 6.5 million cases and more than 7300 dengue-related deaths [6]. In the Caribbean, and particularly in the Guadeloupe archipelago, epidemics are regularly recorded every 2–3 years [7]. According to several forecasting models, this scenario can worsen as climate change will impact vector-borne disease transmission by promoting the proliferation of breeding sites, blood meals, and viral spread in certain settings [8,9].
Today, we lack long-term solutions to cope with the burden of dengue. As recommended by the Pan American Health Organization [10], various measures have been taken to reduce its impact, including vaccine formulations and the use of chemical insecticides. Regarding dengue vaccines, several options exist, but none cover the entire population, and their efficacy can be influenced by patients’ dengue history. For instance, Qdenga and Dengvaxia vaccines have been reported to have an efficacy of 80% [11], but the latter is only recommended for individuals with prior dengue exposure [12,13,14]. Regarding insecticides, their intensive use impacts the environment and leads to selection of insecticide resistance, as observed in many Ae. aegypti populations [15,16,17,18]. Both strategies have so far failed to efficiently avoid DENV spread in the populations, which underlines the urgency and necessity of research on alternative approaches or products for mosquito control.
The traditional use of herbal formulations has already shown effectiveness in repelling or killing mosquitoes in dengue-endemic areas [19,20,21]. Numerous ethnobotanical studies have demonstrated that medicinal plants can be effective due to their active compounds (e.g., essential oils) against mosquitoes [22,23]. Because the population from dengue endemic areas possesses a strong know-how on mosquitoes and their link with the environment, many studies have used ethnobotanical approaches to identify vector control plants (VCP). Through these studies, numerous new pharmaceuticals were developed, and several active ingredients were discovered around the world [20,24,25,26].
Here, to find new ecologically and environmentally friendly solutions for mosquito control, we used an ethnobotanical survey to investigate the ancestral knowledge of Guadeloupe inhabitants on VCPs. Guadeloupe is considered a biodiversity hotspot [27], where several plants are recognised for their culinary, cosmetic, and medicinal properties thanks to previous ethnobotanical and ethnopharmacological studies [22,28]. However, the documentation of Guadeloupean knowledge of VCP is scarce. Building on the TRAMIL guidelines (Program of Applied Research on Popular Medicine in the Caribbean) and previous studies, we aimed to investigate the traditional uses of Guadeloupean plants specifically in the context of vector control [22,23].
In this study, we used an inclusion/exclusion method to identify 38 plants with documented traditional uses and strong potential for mosquito control. The selection process was guided by a multidisciplinary local team comprising botanists, doctors, biologists, social workers, chemists, and local experts. Various criteria were considered, including information from local literature and the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or essential oils in the plants (Table 1). This collaborative approach ensured a comprehensive evaluation of each plant’s suitability for further investigation based on both scientific and traditional knowledge. Then, we conducted a vector control potential classification based on a digital semi-structured survey conducted in Guadeloupe of those 38 know-how plants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

Our study area focused on plants recorded in the Guadeloupe archipelago (French West Indies). According to Encyclopædia Universalis France [29], Guadeloupe is located in the Caribbean Sea at 14°47′53″ N 58°24′59″ W and the Map of Guadeloupe archipelago are available in the Figure 1. This partly volcanic island is the largest of the Leeward Islands. Several studies have highlighted Guadeloupe as a biodiversity hotspot [27].

2.2. Know-How Plants Selection via Inclusion/Exclusion Method

A list of 38 know-how plants was elaborated by a local multidisciplinary group including botanists, doctors, biologists, social workers, chemists, and local experts. Numerous criteria were considered, including the scientific expertise of the multidisciplinary group, reports from local literature reports [23] and the presence of odorous molecules in the plants. The scientific names, reported uses, and phytochemical compounds of each proposed plant are available in Table 1.

2.3. Ethnobotanical Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

In response to COVID-19 restrictions mandated by the Prime Minister [30], we developed a digital semi-structured questionnaire using Google Forms. This online survey was distributed via a snowball method between September 2022 and January 2023, and 216 volunteers over the age of 18 chose to participate after being informed of the scientific purpose of the survey according to procedures of the internal ethics committee of COVACHIM-M2E Laboratory (University of the West Indies).
The survey was set up following the TRAMIL methodology, adapted with a few modifications to (I) take into account respondents’ digital fluency, and to (II) pre-select local populations with plant knowledge (III) to assess the plants with potential for vector control properties [22]. Thus, the survey was divided into four sections. The first section provided a description of the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents: age, geographical location, and employment status. The second section was based on the respondents’ environment: their type of home, their access to gardens, and their source of plant supply. The third section assessed the plant identification skills of respondents, and the fourth section assessed their plant usage skills. The latter two sections can be considered as a pre-selection of users based on their level of ancestral and folklore knowledge related to plant-based practices. A list of 38 know-how plants was presented only to pre-selected users. Thus, uninitiated respondents who could neither identify plants (Section 3) nor use them (Section 4) did not have access to this list. Only respondents with plant knowledge were authorized to select the plants that they could identify in Section 3 bis and the plants they used in Section 4 bis. The Flowchart of the ethnobotanical survey methodology for assessing plant-based vector control knowledge in Guadeloupe is available in Figure 2. The survey questionnaire and the associated sections are available in the Supplementary Materials.
The fifth section classified the users with skills related to vector control, while participants without those skills were redirected to the end of the survey. In Section 5 bis, the 38 know-how plants list was presented to assess the vector control folklore knowledge of Guadeloupean pre-selected respondents. To avoid bias, all the 38 know-how plant names were given with their scientific names and their local names. The Statistical analysis was carried out using GraphPad Prism 9.

2.4. Quantitative Etnobotanics

To assess quantitatively the importance of the selected plants in traditional practices, three ethnobotanical indices were considered: Fidelity Level (FL), Frequency of Citation Index (FC), and Relative Frequency of Citation Index (RFC). These indices provide complementary insights into the relationship between plant selection and their reported uses by respondents.

2.4.1. Fidelity Level (FL)

This formula was calculated as described in Friedman et al. [24]. In this adapted formula, IP represents the number of respondents who selected a particular plant species for a specific use, and IU represents the total number of respondents who selected the same plant across the entire survey. This metric provides insight into the relationship between a selected plant and its reported use by users.
F L = I P I U × 100

2.4.2. Frequency of Citation Index (FC)

The citation frequency (FC) is described as a percentage (%) and was adapted using the formula in Fanou et al. [31].
F C = N s N t × 100
where Ns is the number of times a plant was selected in one section and Nt is the total number of all selected species in the same section.

2.4.3. Relative Frequency of Citation Index (RFC)

This formula, adapted from [32], was calculated from the citation frequency (FC), where FC is the frequency of a selected plant in relation to the total number of plants selected per section, and N is the total number of respondents per section.
R F C = F C N

2.5. Previous Knowledge of Plants’ Anti-Mosquito Properties

To assess the general knowledge about the 38 know-how plants proposed and to confirm their vector control potential when information was available, a literature review was conducted through a process of inclusion/exclusion of keywords for each plant. As a first step, two databases were selected: Science Direct and PubMed (National Library of Medicine). To search for articles, we used each scientific plant name combined with height different keyword in these databases. Articles suggested by the databases were selected for initial abstracts and keywords screening. We removed from our selection irrelevant abstracts and keywords, duplicates, non-open-access articles, and articles published before 2010 before validation of the final articles list that was included in the analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Preselection of 38 Candidate Plants by a Multidisciplinary Group

Drawing on the diverse expertise of a multidisciplinary group and literature data available, a targeted list of plant species with promising insecticidal or repellent potential was established. This collaborative work led to the identification of 38 candidate species. Table 1 provides an overview of these 38 preselected species, including their reported traditional uses, major phytochemical constituents, and relevant literature references. Insecticidal properties, when documented, are highlighted in bold. The selected species are distributed across 24 botanical families, with Lamiaceae, Fabaceae, Rutaceae, and Zingiberaceae being the most frequently represented. These families are known for their rich essential oil profiles and bioactive compounds such as terpenes, flavonoids, alkaloids, and phenolic acids.
Some species, such as Azadirachta indica, Ocimum basilicum, and Cymbopogon citratus, have already been studied in the context of mosquito control. Others, although less documented, exhibit phytochemical profiles suggesting potential bioactivity. This scientifically grounded selection served as a basis for the ethnobotanical survey.
Table 1. Overview of the 38 know-how plants: traditional uses, properties, and phytochemical composition. Insecticidal properties documented were underlined and bolded.
Table 1. Overview of the 38 know-how plants: traditional uses, properties, and phytochemical composition. Insecticidal properties documented were underlined and bolded.
Scientifics Names Plants (Family)Reported Tradional UsesPhytochemical Composition
(Main Compound)
References
Aloe barbadensis Mill.
(Asphodelaceae)
Constipation, liver and skin disorders, conjunctivitis, headache, diabetes treatmentAnthraquinones, flavonoids, tannins, sterols, alkaloids, and VOCs.[23,33]
Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.)
B.L.Burtt & R.M.Sm.
(Zingiberaceae)
Flu-like symptoms, digestion, gastric ulcer, high blood pressureTerpenes, essential oils, flavonoids, polyphenolics, and sterols[23,34]
Anethum graveolens L.
(Apiaceae)
Digestion, infant and adult colic, helps breastfeedingFlavonoids, proteins, lipids, glucides, fibers[23,35]
Annona muricata L.
(Annonaceae)
Anti-tumor, anti-helminth, anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, hypotensive, anti-viral, and anti-inflammatory effectsPhenolic compounds, acetogenins, and alkaloids[34,36,37,38,39,40]
Annona squamosa L.
(Annonaceae)
Skin rash, cardiotonic, digestion, flu, insecticidalFlavonoids, phenolic compounds, quinones, coumarins, amino acids, anthocyanidins, and sugars[23,36]
Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg
(Moraceae)
Liver disorder, adjuvant to hypertensive treatmentsPhenolic compounds[23]
Azadirachta indica A. Juss.
(Meliaceae)
Pyrexia, headache, ulcer, respiratory disorders, cancer, diabetes, leprosy, malaria, dengue, chicken pox, and dermal complicationsPhenols, tannins, leucoanthocyanidins, catechins, favonols, and xanthones[23,41]
Bixa orellana L.
(Bixaceae)
Fatigue, sunburn, diarrheaPhenols, alkaloids, and flavonoids[23,42]
Carica papaya L.
(Caricaceae)
Liver disorder, worms, abscess, boil, digestion, ulcerative wounds, urethritisLipids, sulfur compounds, benzenoids, phenolic compounds, proteins, vitamins, alkaloids, carotenoids, and tannins,[23,36]
Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty
(Poaceae)
Insect repellent, deodorant, gastrointestinal colic, nervousnessTerpenes[23,43]
Citrus × aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle
(Rutaceae)
Flu condition, colds, cough, sore throat, gingivitis, digestion, arteriosclerosis, venotomy, liver disorder, rheumatism, insect repellent, wounds, cosmetics, conjuctivitisFlavonoids, terpenes, phenolic compounds, limonoids, alkaloids, and essential oils[23,44]
Coleus amboinicus Lour.
(Lamiaceae)
Difficult digestion, wounds and insect bites, painful periods, nervousnessTerpenes, phenolic compounds, flavonoids, esters, alcohols, and aldehydes.[23,45]
Cucumis anguria L.
(Cucurbitaceae)
Treat stomach pain and to reduce oedema, treat jaundice, urolithiasis (formation of kidney stones)Alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, carotenoids, steroids, and anthocyanins,[23,46]
Curcuma longa L.
(Zingiberaceae)
Anticancer, antidiabetic, anti-osteoarthritis, antidiarrheal, cardioprotective, anti-oxidant, neuroprotective, hepatoprotective, anti-microbial, renoprotective and anti-inflammatory activitiesPhenolic compounds, terpenes, phytosterols, and essential oils[23,47]
Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf
(Poaceae)
Digestion, insect repellentTerpenes, phenylpropanoids, phenolic acids, esters, flavonoids, flavone, fatty alcohol and phytosterols[23,48]
Dianthera pectoralis (Jacq.) J.F.Gmel.
(Acanthaceae)
Cough, gastrointestinal colic, superficial wounds, nervousness, boils, insomniaAlkaloids, flavonoids, steroids, terpenes, saponosides, and phenolic compounds[23,36]
Elymus repens (L.) Gould
(Poaceae)
Urolithiasis and urinary tract infections, improve the microcirculation, improve body’s defense, mechanisms, activate contractions of uterus, heal atherosclerosis, treat wounds and promote the differentiation and trigger the division of keratinocytes in humansFlavonoid glycosides and sterols[23,49]
Eryngium foetidum L.
(Apiaceae)
Antibacterial, antiviral, and antipyretic applicationsAromatic and aliphatic aldehydes, carotenoids, flavonoids, phenolic compounds[23,35]
Euphorbia hirta L.
(Euphorbiaceae)
Measles, inguinal lymph node disease, diarrheaTriterpenes, flavonoids, xanthones, and polyphenols[23,36]
Hibiscus × rosa-sinensis L.
(Malvaceae)
High blood pressure, prevention of urinary disorders, cough, conjunctivitis, headachesFlavonoids, lipids, alcanes, terpenes, carboxylic acid, proteins, glucids, and minerals[23,36]
Laportea aestuans (L.) Chew
(Urticaceae)
Heartburn, nausea, dyspepsia, vomiting, flatulence, reflux, ulcer, restlessness, decreased appetiteSteroids, tannins, phenols, flavonoids, and alkaloids[50,51]
Lippia alba (Mill.) N.E.Br.
ex Britton & P.Wilson
(Verbenaceae)
Flu condition, difficult digestion, gastrointestinal ulcercyclic ether, alcohols, monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, and ketones[23,52]
Malpighia emarginata DC.
(Malpighiaceae)
Treatment of symptoms related to respiratory, cardiovascular and cholesterol-related diseasesSaccharides, amino acids and vitamins[23,53]
Mangifera indica L.
(Anacardiaceae)
Diarrhea, water retention, respiratory tract conditions, rheumatism, herpespolyphenolic acids, benzophenones, flavonoids, ascorbic acid, carotenoids, and tocopherols[23,46,54]
Mimosa pudica L.
(Fabaceae)
Menstrual crampsSesquiterpenes, tannins, and proteins,[23,36]
Mirabilis jalapa L.
(Nyctaginaceae)
Boils, sprain, contusionGlucids, steroids, alcanes, alcohols, cetones, triterpenes, flavonoids, saponins, and iridoids[23,36]
Momordica charantia L.
(Cucurbitaceae)
Rash, Flu condition, insecticidal, plant protection, superficial skin disorder, pediculosisAlkaloids, phenolic compounds, flavonoids, saponosids, steroids, terpenoids, tannins, triterpenes, amino acids, glucids, saponins, carotenoids[23,36]
Moringa oleifera Lam.
(Moringaceae)
Burns, anti-inflammatory, antinociceptive, antiatherosclerotic, oxidative DNA damage protective, antiperoxidative, cardioprotectivePhenolic acids, flavonoids, alkaloids, phytosterols, natural sugars, vitamins, minerals, and organic acids[23,55]
Neurolaena lobata (L.) R. Br. ex Cass.
(Asteraceae)
Malaria, flu, fever, blood detoxification, diabetes and heal wounds and infectionsSaponins, tannins, alkaloids, and flavonoids[23,56]
Ocimum basilicum L.
(Lamiaceae)
Difficult digestion, headache, vertigo, joint pain, common cold, sinusitis, skin rash, insect bitesTerpenes, alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, saponins, glycosides, ascorbic acid[23,52,53]
Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. & Thonn.
(Phyllanthaceae)
Digestive disease, jaundice, renal calculusCarbohydrates, triterpenoids, alkaloids, glycosides, tannins, flavonoids, polyphenols, triterpenes, and sterols[23,57]
Pimenta racemosa (Mill.)
J. W. Moore
(Myrtaceae)
Rheumatism, bruises, Flu condition, tooth pain, headachesPhenylpropanoids, monoterpenes, phenolic compounds, and terpenes[23,36]
Psidium guajava L.
(Myrtaceae)
Diarrhea, superficial skin disorder, nervousness, vomiting, hangoverFlavonoids, triterpenes, benzenoids, thiazoles, sulfur compounds, thiophenes, steroids, lipids, coumarins, alKanes, alKenes, and oxygenated compounds[23,36]
Senna alata (L.) Roxb.
(Fabaceae)
Antiallergic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant,
anticancer, antidiabetic, and antifungal
flavones, flavonols, flavonoids, glycosides, anthraquinones and sterols[23,36]
Sphagneticola trilobata (L.) Pruski
(Asteraceae)
Painful periods, bronchitis, vomitingSesquiterpenes, diterpenes, and triterpenes[23,36]
Tetradenia riparia (Hochst.) Codd
(Lamiaceae)
Treat respiratory problems, cough, headache, stomach pain, diarrhea, fever, Malaria and DenguePyrone, diterpenes, terpenes, and essential oils[58]
Zanthoxylum caribaeum Gaertn.
(Rutaceae)
Acaricidal, antimicrobial, antioxidant, and insecticidal propertiesSteroids, flavonols, flavones, flavononols, tannins, triterpenoids, and xanthones[36,59,60]
Zingiber officinale Roscoe
(Zingiberaceae)
Digestive conditions, motion sickness dizziness, oropharyngeal conditions, dental pain, tonic, wounds, Flu condition, cough, cholesterol, prevention of atherosclerosis, rheumatismPhenolic compounds, terpenes, polysaccharides, lipids, organic acids, and raw fibers[61]

3.2. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Responders

A total of 216 people were interviewed in the survey. Among them, 62.5% were women (135/216), 22.2% were men (48/216), and 15.3% did not provide any details. Participants were asked about their field of work and their age. Only 3.7% (8/216) of the participants worked in the agricultural field, and the main age group comprised participants between 36 and 50 years old, representing 6.9% (2/29) of users. Among the participants, (20.4% or 44/216) worked in the health sector, with the largest age group being 27.4% (29/216) for those aged between 18 and 35 years old. Similarly, 13.4% (29/216) of participants worked in research, with the main age group being 24.1% (7/29) for those aged between 36 and 50 years old. Additionally, 12% (26/216) of participants were employed in education, where the highest age group was 32% (16/50), for those aged between 51 and 65 years old. Half of the participants (50.5% or 109/216) work in another field not proposed in this study, and the most common age group of these participants was between 18 and 35 years old. All the information regarding work sectors by age group is available in Table 2. Almost all the participants (98.1%) lived in Guadeloupe or the Caribbean basin area, as expected; other locations were not surveyed.
Finally, 76.9% (166/216) of participants had access to a garden, while 23.1% (50/216) of them did not. Of users with garden access, they revealed that 10.8% (18/166) of them lived in an apartment and 89.2% (148/166) of users lived in a house. Regarding users without access to a garden, 70% (35/50) of them lived in apartments, while 30% (15/50) lived in a house.

3.3. Pre-Selection of Participants Based on Plant Knowledge and Usage

A pre-selection method was developed to distinguish between users, those with no plant identification skills (I), those who utilize plants (II), and those who recognize plants’ vector control properties (III). According to our pre-selection method, 6% of total participants (13/216) were unable to identify Caribbean plants in Section 3. The remaining participants (94% or 203/216) were asked to select the plants that they could identify in Section 3 bis. In addition, because they could not list their use of Caribbean plants in Section 4, 13.4% (29/216) of them were redirected to the end of the survey. Thus, a total of 86.6% (187/216) of participants were assessed on their general plant usage in Section 4 bis. However, among them, only 32.1% (60/187) declared using plants also for their vector control properties in Section 5. These participants were then asked to select their vector control plants from our list of 38 documented plants in Section 5 bis. In view of this contradictory result, we cannot ensure that the respondents acquired all their knowledge through ancestral transmission.

3.4. General Respondents’ Skills to Identify and Use Caribbean Plants

All participants were asked about their general skills to identify Caribbean plants. According to the participants in the panel, 45.4% (98/216) of users could identify the plants around them, 48.6% (105/216) of informants were uncertain, and 6% (13/216) of informants were unable to identify Caribbean plants (Figure 3a). Subsequently, all participants were asked about their general skills in using Caribbean plants. The survey showed that 38.9% (84/216) of participants used plants daily, while 47.7% (103/216) of users used plants at least once a month, and 13.4% (29/216) have never used plants (Figure 3b). Internal plants use (i.e., ingestion) accounts for 96.3% (180/187) of respondent’s answers, while external use, such as application to the skin and/or hair, accounts for 53.5% (100/187) of responses; the domestic/environmental use, such as insecticide or microbial treatment, accounts for 24.6% (46/187) of responses, Figure 3c.
Finally, selected users were asked to indicate their supply locations to find or buy Caribbean plants: 79.1% (148/187) obtained their plants from a garden or a yard (around their house). Additionally, 58.3% (109/187) obtained them from their neighbours, family or friend. A smaller proportion,18.2% (34/187) purchased plants at markets, shops or Pharmacy (Figure 3b).

3.5. Recognizable and Mainly Used Plants

All selected users were asked to select plants throughout our 38 know-how plants proposed list. This selection allowed us to highlight the plants they can identify and use. Of 94% (203/216) of respondents who reported being able to recognize Caribbean plants, the most commonly identified plants were Aloe barbadensis (83.3% or 169/203), Cymbopogon citratus (81.8% or 166/203), Carica papaya (77.3% or 157/203), Mangifera indica (73% or 148/203) and Annona muricata (73% or 122/203) being the most commonly identified. However, five plants proved difficult for participants to recognize: Zanthoxylum caribaeum (2% or 4/203), Mirabilis jalapa (4% or 8/203), Sphagneticola trilobata (8.9% or 18/203) and Azadirachta indica, and Anethum graveolens (10.8% or 22/203 and 10.3% or 21/203 respectively). These results are presented in Figure 4, Section 3 bis. Parameters were calculated to quantify the link between recognizable plants and Guadeloupean respondents. The first set of metrics calculated is the frequency of citation, named as FC3 b in this section, and yielded across 5.05% and 0.12%. The highest index value of 5.05% was attributed to Aloe barbadensis, followed by Alpinia zerumbet at 4.97% and Anethum graveolens at 4.70%. The second set of metrics calculated is the index of frequency level, named as FL3 b. This index was yielded across 100% and 42.45%. Thus, the highest index value of 100% was attributed to Aloe barbadensis, followed by Alpinia zerumbet at 98.63% and Anethum graveolens at 85.71%. On the lower end, Zingiber officinale had the lowest index value of 42.45%, followed by Zanthoxylum caribaeum at 44.72% and Sphagneticola trilobata at 47.12%.
Among the 86.6% (187/216) of users who indicated frequent or regular plant usage, the most used were, Cymbopogon citratus (90.4% or 169/216), Alpinia zerumbet (65.6% or 117/216), Aloe barbadensis (61.5% or 115/216), Psidium guajava (50.8% or 95/216) and Moringa oleifera (49.2% or 92/216). Each plant has been reported as used by at least one respondent, except for Zanthoxylum caribaeum, which was not selected by any participant (0% selection or 0/216). The least frequently used plants were Mimosa pudica (0.5% or 1/216), Sphagneticola trilobata (1.6% or 3/216), Chrysopogon zizanioides (4.3% or 8/216), Mirabilis jalapa (4.3% or 8/216), and Tetradenia riparia (5.3% or 10/216). These results are presented in Figure 4, Section 4 bis.
Data such as the frequency of citations index (FC) and the index of level fidelity (FL) are also available, providing information on the statistical relevance of users’ responses according to the folk medicine in the different sections.
The first set of metrics in this section, named FC4b, varied between 0% and 8.18%. The highest FC4b index was 8.18%, recorded for Aloe barbadensis. The second highest value, 5,65%, was attributed to Alpinia zerumbet, Anethum graveolens, and Annona muricata. The third highest value, 4.60%, was recorded for Annona squamosa. Moreover, Zingiber officinale was the only plant with an index value of 0% in this study. Then, the second lowest index was 0.04% and was attributed to Zanthoxylum caribaeum. Finally, the third lowest index, 0.14%, was attributed to Sphagneticola trilobata. All these results were available in Figure 4, Section 4 bis.
The second set of metrics in this section index named FL4b in this section varied between 54.65% and 0%. The highest FL4b index is 54.65% and was attributed to Aloe barbadensis. The second highest index value is 52.29% and was attributed to Alpinia zerumbet. Finally, the third highest index value is 50.55% and was attributed to Anethum graveolens. The lowest index value (0%) was attributed to Zingiber officinale. The second lowest index value (1.36%) was attributed to Zanthoxylum caribaeum. Finally, the third lowest index value is 14.03% and was attributed to Sphagneticola trilobata (Figure 4, Section 4 bis).

3.6. Anti-Mosquito Plants Identified by the Ethnobotanical Survey

The informants who regularly use plants were surveyed about their use for vector control. Thus, 86.6% (187/216) of informants revealed that they frequently used Caribbean plants, at least once a month (Figure 3b). However, only 32% (60/187) of them use plants for their vector control properties. Out of the 38 plants listed in the survey, 22 plants were selected from the proposed panel (Table 2). The three most selected plants were Cymbopogon citratus (93.3% or 56/187), Artocarpus alitis (25.0% or 15/187), and Pimenta racemosa (18.3% or 11/187). On the other hand, 17 plants were not selected by any user with expertise in Caribbean plant use. These include Anethum graveolens, Annona squamosa, Azadirachta indica, Carica papaya, Cucumis anguria, Dianthera pectoralis, Elymus repens, Euphorbia hirta, Hibiscus rosa sinensis, Malpighia emarginata, Mimosa pudica, Mirabilis jalapa, Momordica charantia, Phyllanthus amarus, Psidium guajava, Sphagneticola trilobata, and Zanthoxylum caribaeum plants.
Different parameters were calculated to highlight the connection between plants and their various uses in folklore medicine. The first metric in this section is the frequency of citation (FC), which was calculated to assess the relevance of plant use in our study populations. Indeed, this metric indicates how often a particular plant is mentioned by informants. In the anti-mosquito section, this index, named FC5 b, ranged from 46.67% to 0%. The highest value, 46.7%, was attributed to Aloe barbadensis, followed by Alpinia zerumbet at 12.5% and Anethum graveolens with 9.17%. The lowest index, 0.83%, was attributed to Cucumis anguria, Curcuma longa, Cymbopogon citratus, Dianthera pectoralis, Elymus repens, Eryngium foetidum, Euphorbia hirta, Hibiscus rosa sinensis, Lippia alba, and Malpighia emarginata. The second lowest index calculated was 1.67% and was attributed to Carica Papaya, Chrysopogon zizanioides, and Citrus aurantiifolia. Finally, the third lowest index was 2.5% and was attributed to Azadirachta indica and Bixa orellana. Several plants were attributed to the index of 0%. These included Coleus amboinicus, Laportea aestuans, Mangifera indica, Mimosa pudica, Mirabilis jalapa, Momordica charantia, Moringa oleifera, Neurolaena lobata, Ocimum basilicum, Phyllanthus amarus, Pimenta racemosa, Psidium guajava, Senna alata, Tetradenia riparia, Sphagneticola trilobata, Zanthoxylum caribaeum, and Zingiber officinale.
The second set of metrics calculated is the fidelity level index (FL), which indicates the importance of specific plants in different survey sections. In the anti-mosquito plants section, the fidelity level index, named as FL5 b, ranged from 0.00250% and 0.00006%. These metrics gave very low results, with the highest value being 0.0025% for the Zanthoxylum caribaeum plants. The second highest value, 0.0012%, was recorded for Mirabilis Jalapa while the third highest value, 0.00055%, was recorded for Sphagneticola trilobata plants. The lowest value at 0.00006% was recorded for Aloe barbadensis, Coleus amboinicus, Cymbopogon citratus and Carica papaya. Some plants share the same FL index, such as Mangifera indica, Psidium guajava, Citrus aurantiifolia and Artocarpus altilis. Each of these plants had a value of 0.00007%. Finally, Euphorbia hirta, Chrysopogon zizanioides and Tetradenia riparia were indexed with a value of 0.00022%.

3.7. Previous Knowledge on Our Selected Anti-Mosquito Plants

The literature review conducted in this study revealed 12 plants that have not been reported for their vector control properties in the literature according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 3). These plants include Cucumis anguria, Dianthera pectoralis, Elymus repens, Eryngium foetidum, Laportea aestuans, Malpighia emarginata, Neurolaena lobata, Pimenta racemosa, Senna alata, Tetradenia riparia, Sphagneticola trilobata and Zanthoxylum caribaeum.
In contrast, 26 plants also pre-selected by our multidisciplinary groups have been studied in the literature for their vector control properties. The plant parts most commonly used for extraction are roots, stems, barks, leaves, flowers, rhizomes, latex, fruits and seeds. In this study, the most commonly used parts were the leaves, and they were extracted from the species Aloe barbadensis, Annona muricata, Annona squamosa, Azadirachta indica, Carica papaya, Coleus amboinicus, Cymbopogon citratus, Euphorbia hirta, Lippia alba, Mangifera indica, Mimosa pudica, Momordica charantia, Moringa oleifera, Ocimum basilicum and Phyllanthus amarus. However, the least commonly used plant part is the latex, found in Carica papaya.
Various extracts, including essential oils, hydrolates, aquaeous extracts, organic extracts, and powder extracts, were obtained from these plant parts using solvents like chloroform, methanol, ethanol, distilled water, and other organic solvents. Several properties of interest for vector control plants were tested on multiple mosquito stages. Larvicidal, adulticidal, pupicidal, ovicidal, as well as repellent and oviposition-deterrent properties were examined in these studies. Additionally, various mosquito species were used in these tests, including the genus Chironomus, Aedes, Culex, and Anopheles.
The experiments were carried out under different conditions, including laboratory, semi-field, field, and in vitro conditions.

4. Discussion

This study is the first ethnobotanical survey conducted in Guadeloupe to identify and document local plant species, particularly those with potential anti-mosquito properties.
Our interviews revealed that 94% of participants recognized Caribbean plants, and 86.6% used them regularly; only 32% employed them for mosquito control. This indicates a lack of awareness regarding their vector-control potential. Aloe barbadensis and Cymbopogon citratus were the most cited, while Zanthoxylum caribaeum and Mirabilis jalapa were less known, reflecting both the persistence of knowledge about well-known species and a gradual erosion of traditional plant use, possibly due to urbanization and shifts in cultural transmission [142,143].
The sociodemographic profile of the 216 respondents reveals that most were women (62.5%), consistent with Guadeloupe’s gender distribution [144] and ethnobotanical trends, where women are often the primary keepers of plant knowledge [145,146]. The majority were aged 18 to 35 years old (49.0%), with a notable proportion working in the health sector (27.4% of participants), suggesting a rising interest in phytotherapy among younger generations. Despite 50.8% unknown profession, responses showed diverse backgrounds, suggesting that plant knowledge is not confined to a specific profession. The low representation of agricultural workers (3.7%) may reflect limited connection with traditional practices or a sampling bias due to the online format, which may have excluded rural populations. This aligns with studies highlighting the role of land interaction in knowledge transmission, often disrupted in urban settings [147].
Regarding geographical residence, 98.1% of users lived in Guadeloupe or in the Caribbean region, reinforcing the cultural relevance of our data. A high proportion of users (76.9%) had access to a garden, mainly among those in houses, while apartment occupants had less access. This finding underscores how urban housing conditions may limit interaction with local flora. Similar patterns have been observed in other tropical regions, where reduced green space access correlates with declining ethnobotanical knowledge, particularly among urban populations [142,146].
Plant recognition was reported by 94% of respondents, with Aloe barbadensis, Cymbopogon citratus, and Carica papaya, while species such as Zanthoxylum caribaeum and Mirabilis jalapa were less familiar. This discrepancy highlights the unequal transmission of botanical knowledge and emphasizes the importance of promoting education on lesser-known plant species. Aloe barbadensis recorded the highest citation frequency, followed by Alpinia zerumbet and Anethum graveolens. Moreover, Aloe barbadensis recorded a perfect fidelity level of 100%, followed closely by Alpinia zerumbet and Anethum graveolens. Conversely, species like Zingiber officinale and Sphagneticola trilobata had low fidelity and citation rates. These observations are consistent with another study carried out in Guadeloupe by Courric et al. [28]. Indeed, Aloe barbadensis and Alpinia zerumbet were highly cited for identification at 12% and 18%, respectively. However, differences in the mention of species such as Mirabilis jalapa and Anethum graveolens between both studies suggest regional or generational variations in plant knowledge. This reinforces the importance of localized, regularly updated ethnobotanical surveys to capture dynamic patterns of knowledge transmission [142,146].
Regarding plant use frequency, 38.9% of participants reported daily use, while 47.7% used them at least once a month. The predominance of internal use (96.3%) over external application (53.5%) suggests widespread plant consumption, but a lower prevalence of use in dermatological or vector-related contexts. Only 24.6% of respondents claimed to use plants in domestic or environmental pest control. These results mirror the findings of Courric et al. [28], where internal uses, especially in the form of infusions, were most frequently reported.
In terms of specific use, Cymbopogon citratus was the most frequently used (90.4%), followed by Alpinia zerumbet (65.6%) and Aloe barbadensis (61.5%). However, plants such as Zanthoxylum caribaeum were not cited, which may reflect their low visibility or use in the local context. The limited usage of certain plants can also be attributed to economic factors in Guadeloupe and limited accessibility to conventional medicines. These results align with an other ethnobotanical surveys conducted in Guadeloupe, indeed, the study by Courric et al. [28], highlighted that Cymbopogon citratus was identified by participants as recognizable in 30% of cases among the 86 reported plant species, followed by Aloe vera (19%) and Alpinia zerumbet (approximately 12%), reflecting a stronger familiarity with these species within the Guadeloupean population.
The high fidelity of Aloe barbadensis (54.65%), Alpinia zerumbet (52.29%), and Anethum graveolens (50.55%) affirms their medicinal relevance in local practices. Conversely, Zingiber officinale (0%) and Zanthoxylum caribaeum were rarely cited or selected, indicating low visibility or limited perceived usefulness. Despite Aloe barbadensis having the highest citation frequency (8.18%), its fidelity index for vector control use (FL5b) was only 0.00006%, reflecting a significant mismatch between recognition and targeted application. Overall, while 86.6% of participants reported using medicinal plants, only 32% used them for mosquito control, highlighting a substantial gap in public awareness of their full bioactive potential.
Out of the 38 proposed plants, only 22 were selected, with Cymbopogon citratus cited by 93.3% of respondents, followed by Pimenta racemosa (18.3%). The exclusion of 17 species suggests selective cultural salience, a common trend in ethnobotany, where a few emblematic plants dominate collective knowledge and use. These findings underscore the importance of developing educational strategies, particularly for younger generations and urban populations with limited green space access, to bridge the gap between traditional plant knowledge and its application in sustainable, culturally relevant vector control strategies [143,147,148,149].
Regarding participants’ skills, our pre-selection method revealed that 78.2% of the total participants were not assessed on their vector control plant skills because of their inability to identify or list their usages for surrounding plants. This result is alarming because only 21.2% of participants were able to correctly identify plants. This lack of evaluation could indicate that the transmission of ancestral knowledge about plants is not systematic among respondents. This finding suggests that a large proportion of the population may not be sufficiently informed about several cultural practices related to local plants as vector control properties. This raises serious concerns about the continuity of ethnobotanical knowledge transmission, especially in the context of urbanization and reduced contact with nature [142,146].
To refine our analysis, we conducted a comparative literature review based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our findings revealed that 12 plants reported by our respondents had no prior documentation regarding vector control properties, including Cucumis anguria, Dianthera pectoralis, Elymus repens, Eryngium foetidum, Laportea aestuans, Malpighia emarginata, Neurolaena lobata, Pimenta racemosa, Senna alata, Tetradenia riparia, Sphagneticola trilobata, and Zanthoxylum caribaeum. This underlines their potential as underexplored bioresources and highlights the need to expand the scope of pharmacological screenings beyond the usual targets.
Among these species, the most frequently cited by respondents for their potential vector control properties were Artocarpus altilis (25%), Pimenta racemosa (18.3%), Bixa orellana (5%), Tetradenia riparia (3.3%), as well as Eryngium foetidum, Laportea aestuans, and Senna alata (each 1.7%). However, the case of Pimenta racemosa is particularly compelling, while no English-language studies met our inclusion criteria for the literature review, research conducted in Cuba by Leyva et al. [150] and published in Spanish, documented its potential larvicidal and repellent activity against Aedes aegypti. Our work thus echoes recent calls in ethnobotany and ecology to integrate multilingual and grey literature into scientific syntheses to avoid bias and knowledge exclusion [151]. Moreover, previous research by Abaul et al. [152] revealed the existence of three chemotypes of Pimenta racemosa, whose potential vector control properties have not yet been studied, suggesting that further investigations are needed to determine whether each chemotype exhibits vector control properties.
Interestingly, some plants that are well-documented in the scientific literature for their vector control properties, were not selected by our pre-selected respondents such as Annona squamosa L. reported for adulticidal and larvicidal activity against mosquitoes [65,66]; Azadirachta indica reported for their multiple properties against mosquitoes [78,82,153]; Carica papaya reported for larvicidal and attractive activity [83,89]; Euphorbia hirta reported for their multiple properties against [108,110]; Hibiscus rosa sinensis reported for larvicidal properties [111]; Mimosa pudica reported for their larvicidal, adulticidal and repellent activity; Mirabilis jalapa reported for larvicidal activity [118]; Momordica charantia reported for larvicidal [64,111,120,121]; Phyllanthus amarus reported for larvicidal and repellent test [68,69] and Psidium guajava reported for their multiple properties against mosquitoes [121,134,135]. This may reflect a disconnection between scientific literature and popular use, influenced by accessibility to extraction technologies, cultural familiarity, or even the perceived relevance of plants for vector control [142,154].
Among these twelve well-documented plants, several share common molecular families, raising the question of whether their vector control properties could be attributed to specific chemical compounds. Identifying these shared bioactive molecule families could help validate their role in vector control and provide insights into potential synergistic mechanisms.
Additionally, our analysis revealed that certain botanical families are particularly well-represented among plants with reported vector control properties, including Zingiberaceae, Poaceae, and the Lamiaceae family, each of which contains multiple species identified for their potential vector control effects. The recurrence of these families across active species raises the possibility that phytochemical activities may be family-specific, providing a useful taxonomic filter for future screening and drug discovery [149].
Furthermore, an in-depth examination of the twelve well-documented plants revealed that several phytochemical families appear repeatedly across different species. Notably, tannins are found in Azadirachta indica, Carica papaya, Mimosa pudica, and Phylanthus amarus. Flavonoids are present in Annona squamosa, Euphorbia hirta, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Momordica charantia, Phylanthus amarus, and Psidium guajava. Triterpenes are reported in Euphorbia hirta, Momordica charantia, Phylanthus amarus, and Psidium guajava, while phenolic compounds are found in Annona squamosa, Carica papaya, Momordica charantia. These recurrent phytochemical families are known for their insecticidal, larvicidal, and repellent properties, and may act through synergistic mechanisms targeting mosquito physiology or behavior.
Limiting factors: To strengthen this study, it would have been beneficial to clarify the broader context of plant-based vector control efficacy in the survey. Participants should have been informed that any effect on mosquito behavior (whether repellent, lethal, or influencing interactions after a bite) was relevant, helping to expand the focus beyond lethal effects alone.
The absence of photographs of the plants included in our questionnaire is a significant limitation, as it likely hindered the ability of respondents to recognize certain species. Indeed, visual cues are critical in ethnobotanical identification and can bridge gaps between linguistic and sensory recognition [155].
Moreover, the language restriction applied in the literature review methodology inevitably led to the exclusion of relevant studies published in other languages, particularly Spanish, which are predominant in the tropical regions where mosquito-borne diseases are also prevalent, as Cuba, where arbovirus transmissions such as dengue virus, chikungunya, and Zika have been previously [156,157].
Additionally, the reliance on self-reported data in our ethnobotanical survey introduces the possibility of declarative bias. Respondents’ responses may be influenced by personal perceptions, memory recall, or varying levels of botanical knowledge. Moreover, the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic required that the survey be conducted exclusively online, using a digital questionnaire [30]. While this approach ensured accessibility and data collection efficiency, it limited the possibility of obtaining testimonies from elders with extensive knowledge of ancestral practices. This may have resulted in an underrepresentation of certain traditional uses that are less known among younger generations. However, efforts were made to optimize the questionnaire design by ensuring that the questions were short, simple, yet precise, reducing the completion time to approximately five minutes and minimizing respondent fatigue.
Finally, broader environmental and sociocultural factors must be considered. The link between urbanization and plant knowledge transmission is a crucial aspect, as limited access to green spaces in apartment settings may reduce direct exposure to local flora and contribute to a gradual loss of traditional knowledge. This could explain the lower recognition rates of certain lesser-known species in our survey. Additionally, as knowledge about medicinal plants is often passed down through generations, shifting cultural practices and modernization may further impact the transmission and preservation of ethnobotanical traditions in Guadeloupe and other Caribbean regions.

5. Conclusions

Caribbean plants commonly used against the Aedes aegypti mosquito have great potential for mosquito control. However, knowledge about these plants in Guadeloupe remains poorly documented in the literature. The results of this first ethnobotanical study focusing on vector control plants highlight the potential of 22 species recognized by the surveyed participants for their anti-mosquito properties. Notably, Cymbopogon citratus, Pimenta racemosa (including its sub-varieties), Artocarpus altilis, and Tetradenia riparia emerged as the most frequently cited plants for mosquito control. In contrast, other plants with vector control properties well-documented in literature, such as Azadirachta indica and Carica papaya, were not selected by the participants. This discrepancy underscores a significant gap between scientific knowledge and traditional or cultural perceptions of plant efficacy, emphasizing the need for further interdisciplinary research to bridge this divide and integrate local knowledge into scientific validation processes.
A comparative analysis with existing literature identified 12 plants not previously reported for vector control properties, suggesting new research opportunities for their potential larvicidal, adulticidal, or repellent effects, as well as highlighting the value of ethnobotanical surveys in uncovering underexplored plant-based solutions. Although low citation frequencies and fidelity indexes were obtained in some cases, they provide valuable insight into the cultural significance of certain plants in local practices for internal, external, and environmental usages.
These findings present promising opportunities for further scientific investigation into Caribbean plants, particularly as eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives for mosquito control. They also emphasize the importance of preserving and transmitting traditional knowledge on plant usage, while raising awareness of their potential in vector management strategies. Finally, the identification of lesser-studied yet promising plants calls for additional studies, in laboratory and field studies to assess their effectiveness under controlled and real-world conditions. In a context where mosquito resistance to synthetic insecticides is increasing, plant-based approaches offer promising alternatives to enhance vector control strategies in Guadeloupe and beyond.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biology14070888/s1, Figure S1: The five most selected plants for their anti-mosquito properties by the panel in the survey; Figure S2: Ethnobotanical survey presented in our study.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and writing of this article. Conceptualization: Y.D. and G.C.-T.; Methodology: Y.D. and G.C.-T.; Investigation and writing original draft and editing: Y.D.; Writing and reviewing: L.B.; Supervision: G.C.-T. and A.V.-R.; Reviewing: G.C.-T., M.S. and A.V.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We would like to thank the European Regional Cooperation Fund Interreg Caribbean V (Project CARIBPHLORE n°8783) for funding. This work has been also notably supported by the Programme Opérationnel FEDER-Guadeloupe-Conseil Régional “Une Santé” 2021–2027.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the surveyed before starting the survey, and the panel was fully informed about the scientific objectives of this study and provided their prior consent.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Hugues Occibrun, Association 100% Zeb, Degrace BATANTOU, Jerôme TIROLIEN, Elodie CALVEZ, Stacy MELYON, Christelle DOLIN, Sophie VALIER, Lucien VALIER and Thomas JOSEPH-PARFAITE.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
DENVDengue virus
FCFrequency of Citation
FLFidelity Level
VCPVector control plants
VOCsVolatile organic compound
TRAMILProgram of Applied Research on Popular Medicine in the Caribbean

References

  1. Bhatt, S.; Gething, P.W.; Brady, O.J.; Messina, J.P.; Farlow, A.W.; Moyes, C.L.; Drake, J.M.; Brownstein, J.S.; Hoen, A.G.; Sankoh, O.; et al. The Global Distribution and Burden of Dengue. Nature 2013, 496, 504–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Girard, M.; Nelson, C.B.; Picot, V.; Gubler, D.J. Arboviruses: A Global Public Health Threat. Vaccine 2020, 38, 3989–3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marselle, M.R.; Stadler, J.; Korn, H.; Irvine, K.N.; Bonn, A. (Eds.) Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change; Springer International Publisher: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-3-030-02317-1. [Google Scholar]
  4. CDC Dengue Areas of Risk Around the World|CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/areas-with-risk/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/areaswithrisk/around-the-world.html (accessed on 6 January 2024).
  5. Khan, M.B.; Yang, Z.-S.; Lin, C.-Y.; Hsu, M.-C.; Urbina, A.N.; Assavalapsakul, W.; Wang, W.-H.; Chen, Y.-H.; Wang, S.-F. Dengue Overview: An Updated Systemic Review. J. Infect. Public. Health 2023, 16, 1625–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. WHO Dengue and Severe Dengue. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue (accessed on 12 February 2025).
  7. L’Azou, M.; Taurel, A.-F.; Flamand, C.; Quénel, P. Recent Epidemiological Trends of Dengue in the French Territories of the Americas (2000–2012): A Systematic Literature Review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e3235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gharbi, M.; Quenel, P.; Gustave, J.; Cassadou, S.; Ruche, G.L.; Girdary, L.; Marrama, L. Time Series Analysis of Dengue Incidence in Guadeloupe, French West Indies: Forecasting Models Using Climate Variables as Predictors. BMC Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. de Souza, W.M.; Weaver, S.C. Effects of Climate Change and Human Activities on Vector-Borne Diseases. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2024, 22, 476–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Pan American Health Organization (Ed.) Integrated Management Strategy for Arboviral Disease Prevention and Control in the Americas; Pan American Health Organization, Pan American Sanitary Bureau, Regional Office of the World Health Organization: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-92-75-12049-1. [Google Scholar]
  11. Biswal, S.; Reynales, H.; Saez-Llorens, X.; Lopez, P.; Borja-Tabora, C.; Kosalaraksa, P.; Sirivichayakul, C.; Watanaveeradej, V.; Rivera, L.; Espinoza, F.; et al. Efficacy of a Tetravalent Dengue Vaccine in Healthy Children and Adolescents. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 2009–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hadinegoro, S.R.; Arredondo-García, J.L.; Capeding, M.R.; Deseda, C.; Chotpitayasunondh, T.; Dietze, R.; Muhammad Ismail, H.I.H.; Reynales, H.; Limkittikul, K.; Rivera-Medina, D.M.; et al. Efficacy and Long-Term Safety of a Dengue Vaccine in Regions of Endemic Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 1195–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sridhar, S.; Luedtke, A.; Langevin, E.; Zhu, M.; Bonaparte, M.; Machabert, T.; Savarino, S.; Zambrano, B.; Moureau, A.; Khromava, A.; et al. Effect of Dengue Serostatus on Dengue Vaccine Safety and Efficacy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Villar, L.; Dayan, G.H.; Arredondo-García, J.L.; Rivera, D.M.; Cunha, R.; Deseda, C.; Reynales, H.; Costa, M.S.; Morales-Ramírez, J.O.; Carrasquilla, G.; et al. Efficacy of a Tetravalent Dengue Vaccine in Children in Latin America. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fonseca-González, I.; Quiñones, M.L.; Lenhart, A.; Brogdon, W.G. Insecticide Resistance Status of Aedes aegypti (L.) from Colombia. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gubler, D.J. Epidemic Dengue/Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever as a Public Health, Social and Economic Problem in the 21st Century. Trends Microbiol. 2002, 10, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lima, E.P.; Paiva, M.H.S.; de Araújo, A.P.; da Silva, É.V.G.; da Silva, U.M.; de Oliveira, L.N.; Santana, A.E.G.; Barbosa, C.N.; de Paiva Neto, C.C.; Goulart, M.O.; et al. Insecticide Resistance in Aedes aegypti Populations from Ceará, Brazil. Parasites Vectors 2011, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Vontas, J.; Kioulos, E.; Pavlidi, N.; Morou, E.; della Torre, A.; Ranson, H. Insecticide Resistance in the Major Dengue Vectors Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2012, 104, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wendimu, A.; Tekalign, W. Field Efficacy of Ethnomedicinal Plant Smoke Repellency against Anopheles arabiensis and Aedes aegypti. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Youmsi, R.D.F.; Fokou, P.V.T.; Menkem, E.Z.; Bakarnga-Via, I.; Keumoe, R.; Nana, V.; Boyom, F.F. Ethnobotanical Survey of Medicinal Plants Used as Insects Repellents in Six Malaria Endemic Localities of Cameroon. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2017, 13, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gou, Y.; Li, Z.; Fan, R.; Qiu, Z.; Wang, L.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y. Ethnobotanical Survey of Plants Traditionally Used against Hematophagous Invertebrates by Ethnic Groups in the Mountainous Area of Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Plant Divers. 2020, 42, 415–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Boulogne, I.; Germosén-Robineau, L.; Ozier-Lafontaine, H.; Fleury, M.; Loranger-Merciris, G. TRAMIL Ethnopharmalogical Survey in Les Saintes (Guadeloupe, French West Indies): A Comparative Study. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2011, 133, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. TRAMIL. Pharmacopée Végétale Caribéenne (Deuxième Édition); TRAMIL: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  24. Friedman, J.; Yaniv, Z.; Dafni, A.; Palewitch, D. A Preliminary Classification of the Healing Potential of Medicinal Plants, Based on a Rational Analysis of an Ethnopharmacological Field Survey among Bedouins in the Negev Desert, Israel. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1986, 16, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Roch Christian, J.; Houéto, E.; Gratien, B.; Kpètèhoto, W.; Dougnon, V.; Pognon, E.; ASSOGBA, M.F.; Loko, F.; Boko, M.; Gbénou, J. Étude Ethnobotanique et Phytochimique de Momordica charantia Linn (Cucurbitaceae) à Cotonou Au Bénin Étude Ethnobotanique et Phytochimique de Momordica charantia Linn (Cucurbitaceae) à Cotonou Au Bénin. J. Appl. Biosci. 2016, 106, 10249–10257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tugume, P.; Kakudidi, E.K.; Buyinza, M.; Namaalwa, J.; Kamatenesi, M.; Mucunguzi, P.; Kalema, J. Ethnobotanical Survey of Medicinal Plant Species Used by Communities around Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. DEAL de Guadeloupe. La Biodiversité en Guadeloupe, Qu’est-ce Que C’est? Available online: https://www.guadeloupe.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/la-biodiversite-en-guadeloupe-qu-est-ce-que-c-est-a953.html (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  28. Courric, E.; Brinvilier, D.; Couderc, P.; Ponce-Mora, A.; Méril-Mamert, V.; Sylvestre, M.; Pelage, J.H.; Vaillant, J.; Rousteau, A.; Bejarano, E.; et al. Medicinal Plants and Plant-Based Remedies in Grande-Terre: An Ethnopharmacological Approach. Plants 2023, 12, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Encyclopædia Universalis France Guadeloupe-Atlas & Cartes. Available online: https://www.universalis.fr/atlas/europe/france/guadeloupe/ (accessed on 12 February 2025).
  30. Prime Minister Work and COVID-19: What Are the Rules? Available online: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F35217?lang=en (accessed on 7 January 2024).
  31. Fanou, B.A.; Klotoe, J.R.; Fah, L.; Dougnon, V.; Koudokpon, C.H.; Toko, G.; Loko, F. Ethnobotanical Survey on Plants Used in the Treatment of Candidiasis in Traditional Markets of Southern Benin. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 2020, 20, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tardío, J.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M. Cultural Importance Indices: A Comparative Analysis Based on the Useful Wild Plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Econ. Bot. 2008, 62, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nalimu, F.; Oloro, J.; Kahwa, I.; Ogwang, P.E. Review on the Phytochemistry and Toxicological Profiles of Aloe vera and Aloe ferox. Futur J. Pharm. Sci. 2021, 7, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Agu, K.C.; Okolie, P.N. Proximate Composition, Phytochemical Analysis, and in Vitro Antioxidant Potentials of Extracts of Annona muricata (Soursop). Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 5, 1029–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Spinozzi, E.; Maggi, F.; Bonacucina, G.; Pavela, R.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Canale, A.; Romano, D.; Desneux, N.; Wilke, A.B.B.; et al. Apiaceae Essential Oils and Their Constituents as Insecticides against Mosquitoes—A Review. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 171, 113892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Germosén-Robineau Lionel. Pharmacopée Végétale Caribéenne 2014. Bibliothèque Numérique Manioc, Consulté le 15 Juillet 2024. Lien. Available online: http://www.manioc.org/recherch/T20008 (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  37. Adefegha, S.A.; Oyeleye, S.I.; Oboh, G. Distribution of Phenolic Contents, Antidiabetic Potentials, Antihypertensive Properties, and Antioxidative Effects of Soursop (Annona muricata L.) Fruit Parts In Vitro. Biochem. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 347673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Balderrama-Carmona, A.P.; Silva-Beltrán, N.P.; Gálvez-Ruiz, J.-C.; Ruíz-Cruz, S.; Chaidez-Quiroz, C.; Morán-Palacio, E.F. Antiviral, Antioxidant, and Antihemolytic Effect of Annona muricata L. Leaves Extracts. Plants 2020, 9, 1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Coria-Téllez, A.V.; Montalvo-Gónzalez, E.; Yahia, E.M.; Obledo-Vázquez, E.N. Annona muricata: A Comprehensive Review on Its Traditional Medicinal Uses, Phytochemicals, Pharmacological Activities, Mechanisms of Action and Toxicity. Arab. J. Chem. 2018, 11, 662–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ngemenya, M.N.; Asongana, R.; Zofou, D.; Ndip, R.A.; Itoe, L.O.; Babiaka, S.B. In Vitro Antibacterial Potential against Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella, Cytotoxicity, and Acute Biochemical Effects in Mice of Annona muricata Leaf Extracts. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2022, 2022, 3144684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Nagano, M.S.; Batalini, C.; Nagano, M.S.; Batalini, C. Phytochemical Screening, Antioxidant Activity and Potential Toxicity of Azadirachta indica A. Juss (Neem) Leaves. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Químico-Farm. 2021, 50, 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Muddapur, U.M.; Turakani, B.; Jalal, N.A.; Ashgar, S.S.; Momenah, A.M.; Alshehri, O.M.; Mahnashi, M.H.; Shaikh, I.A.; Khan, A.A.; Dafalla, S.E.; et al. Phytochemical Screening of Bixa Orellana and Preliminary Antidiabetic, Antibacterial, Antifibrinolytic, Anthelmintic, Antioxidant, and Cytotoxic Activity against Lung Cancer (A549) Cell Lines. J. King Saud. Univ.-Sci. 2023, 35, 102683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Grover, M.; Behl, T.; Virmani, T. Phytochemical Screening, Antioxidant Assay and Cytotoxic Profile for Different Extracts of Chrysopogon zizanioides Roots. Chem. Biodivers. 2021, 18, e2100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Indriyani, N.N.; Anshori, J.A.; Permadi, N.; Nurjanah, S.; Julaeha, E. Bioactive Components and Their Activities from Different Parts of Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle for Food Development. Foods 2023, 12, 2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arumugam, G.; Swamy, M.K.; Sinniah, U.R. Plectranthus amboinicus (Lour.) Spreng: Botanical, Phytochemical, Pharmacological and Nutritional Significance. Molecules 2016, 21, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zomba, D. Wild Cucumis Anguria Phytochemical Profile and Antioxidant Activity|Pamhidzai Dzomba—Academia.Edu. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/26648206/Wild_Cucumis_Anguria_Phytochemical_Profile_and_Antioxidant_Activity (accessed on 8 January 2024).
  47. de Souza, L.M.; Inada, N.M.; Venturini, F.P.; Carmona-Vargas, C.C.; Pratavieira, S.; de Oliveira, K.T.; Kurachi, C.; Bagnato, V.S. Photolarvicidal Effect of Curcuminoids from Curcuma longa Linn. against Aedes aegypti Larvae. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2019, 22, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Avoseh, O.; Oyedeji, O.; Rungqu, P.; Nkeh-Chungag, B.; Oyedeji, A. Cymbopogon Species; Ethnopharmacology, Phytochemistry and the Pharmacological Importance. Molecules 2015, 20, 7438–7453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Stanić, G.; Gavrić, D.; Šimić, I. Phytochemical Study of Elymus repens Gould and Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Farm. Glas. 2000, 56, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  50. Christensen, C.B.; Soelberg, J.; Jäger, A.K. Antacid Activity of Laportea aestuans (L.) Chew. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015, 171, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Omotosho, O.; Olawumi, O.; Salako, A. Phytochemical Screening and Antioxidant Parameters Data in Prostatic Rats Fed with Laportea aestuans Leaves. Data Brief. 2018, 20, 577–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nogueira Sobrinho, A.C.; de Morais, S.M.; Marinho, M.M.; de Souza, N.V.; Lima, D.M. Antiviral Activity on the Zika Virus and Larvicidal Activity on the Aedes spp. of Lippia alba Essential Oil and β-Caryophyllene. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 162, 113281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. da Silva Barros, B.R.; do Nascimento, D.K.D.; de Araújo, D.R.C.; da Costa Batista, F.R.; de Oliveira Lima, A.M.N.; da Cruz Filho, I.J.; de Oliveira, M.L.; de Melo, C.M.L. Phytochemical Analysis, Nutritional Profile and Immunostimulatory Activity of Aqueous Extract from Malpighia emarginata DC Leaves. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 23, 101442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zuharah, W.F.; Yousaf, A.; Ooi, K.L.; Sulaiman, S.F. Larvicidal Activities of Family Anacardiaceae on Aedes Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and Identification of Phenolic Compounds. J. King Saud. Univ.-Sci. 2021, 33, 101471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Silva, L.L.d.S.; Silva, S.C.C.; de Oliveira, A.P.S.; Nascimento, J.d.S.; Silva, E.d.O.; Coelho, L.C.B.B.; Neto, P.J.R.; Navarro, D.M.d.A.F.; Napoleão, T.H.; Paiva, P.M.G. Effects of a Solid Formulation Containing Lectin-Rich Fraction of Moringa oleifera Seeds on Egg Hatching and Development of Aedes aegypti Larvae. Acta Trop. 2021, 214, 105789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Méril-Mamert, V.; Ponce-Mora, A.; Sylvestre, M.; Lawrence, G.; Bejarano, E.; Cebrián-Torrejón, G. Antidiabetic Potential of Plants from the Caribbean Basin. Plants 2022, 11, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bose Mazumdar Ghosh, A.; Banerjee, A.; Chattopadhyay, S. An Insight into the Potent Medicinal Plant Phyllanthus amarus Schum. and Thonn. Nucleus (Calcutta) 2022, 65, 437–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shimira, F. Tetradenia Riparia, an Ethnobotanical Plant with Diverse Applications, from Antimicrobial to Anti-Proliferative Activity against Cancerous Cell Lines: A Systematic Review. J. Herbal. Med. 2022, 32, 100537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Farouil, L.; Dias, R.P.; Popotte-Julisson, G.; Bibian, G.; Adou, A.I.; de la Mata, A.P.; Sylvestre, M.; Harynuk, J.J.; Cebrián-Torrejón, G. The Metabolomic Profile of the Essential Oil from Zanthoxylum caribaeum (Syn. Chiloperone) Growing in Guadeloupe FWI Using GC × GC-TOFMS. Metabolites 2022, 12, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. de Lara, J.; Pinto, F.; Toledo, A.; Alves, L.; Alves, D. Biological Activities and Phytochemical Screening of Leaf Extracts from Zanthoxylum caribaeum L. (Rutaceae). Biosci. J. 2019, 36, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mao, Q.-Q.; Xu, X.-Y.; Cao, S.-Y.; Gan, R.-Y.; Corke, H.; Beta, T.; Li, H.-B. Bioactive Compounds and Bioactivities of Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). Foods 2019, 8, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Subramaniam, J.; Kovendan, K.; Mahesh Kumar, P.; Murugan, K.; Walton, W. Mosquito Larvicidal Activity of Aloe vera (Family: Liliaceae) Leaf Extract and Bacillus sphaericus, against Chikungunya Vector, Aedes aegypti. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 19, 503–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kerdudo, A.; Ellong, E.N.; Burger, P.; Gonnot, V.; Boyer, L.; Chandre, F.; Adenet, S.; Rochefort, K.; Michel, T.; Fernandez, X. Chemical Composition, Antimicrobial and Insecticidal Activities of Flowers Essential Oils of Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) B.L.Burtt & R.M.Sm. from Martinique Island. Chem. Biodivers. 2017, 14, e1600344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Felipe Oliveros-Díaz, A.; Pájaro-González, Y.; Cabrera-Barraza, J.; Hill, C.; Quiñones-Fletcher, W.; Olivero-Verbel, J.; Díaz Castillo, F. Larvicidal Activity of Plant Extracts from Colombian North Coast against Aedes aegypti L. Mosquito Larvae. Arab. J. Chem. 2022, 15, 104365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ravaomanarivo, L.H.R.; Razafindraleva, H.A.; Raharimalala, F.N.; Rasoahantaveloniaina, B.; Ravelonandro, P.H.; Mavingui, P. Efficacy of Seed Extracts of Annona Squamosa and Annona muricata (Annonaceae) for the Control of Aedes albopictus and Culex quinquefasciatus (Culicidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2014, 4, 798–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Costa, M.S.; Cossolin, J.F.S.; Pereira, M.J.B.; Sant’Ana, A.E.G.; Lima, M.D.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Serrão, J.E. Larvicidal and Cytotoxic Potential of Squamocin on the Midgut of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Toxins 2014, 6, 1169–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Dey, P.; Mandal, S.; Goyary, D.; Verma, A. Larvicidal Property and Active Compound Profiling of Annona Squamosa Leaf Extracts against Two Species of Diptera, Aedes aegypti and Anopheles Stephensi. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2023, 60, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kamaraj, C.; Bagavan, A.; Elango, G.; Zahir, A.A.; Rajakumar, G.; Marimuthu, S.; Santhoshkumar, T.; Rahuman, A.A. Larvicidal Activity of Medicinal Plant Extracts against Anopheles subpictus & Culex tritaeniorhynchus. Indian J. Med. Res. 2011, 134, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  69. Khader, S.Z.A.; Syed Zameer Ahmed, S.; Sathyan, J.; Mahboob, M.R.; Venkatesh, P.K.; Ramesh, K. A Comparative Study on Larvicidal Potential of Selected Medicinal Plants over Green Synthesized Silver Nano Particles. Egypt. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. 2018, 5, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Velayutham, K.; Ramanibai, R. Larvicidal Activity of Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles Using Isoamyl Acetate Identified in Annona squamosa Leaves against Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. J. Basic. Appl. Zool. 2016, 74, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Aguirre, P.A.U.; Martins, K.M.; López, C.D.D.; Sánchez, F.O.; Castaño, A.T.; Velásquez, C.M.R.; Vidal, A.P. Effect of Nanoformulation Azadirachta indica on Some Factors Associated with the Vectorial Capacity and Competence of Anopheles aquasalis Experimentally Infected with Plasmodium Vivax. Acta Trop. 2024, 255, 107223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Aidoo, O.; Kuntworbe, N.; Owusu, F.W.A.; Nii Okantey Kuevi, D. Chemical Composition and In Vitro Evaluation of the Mosquito (Anopheles) Repellent Property of Neem (Azadirachta indica) Seed Oil. J. Trop. Med. 2021, 2021, 5567063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ayinde, A.A.; Morakinyo, O.M.; Sridhar, M.K.C. Repellency and Larvicidal Activities of Azadirachta indica Seed Oil on Anopheles gambiae in Nigeria. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chandramohan, B.; Murugan, K.; Madhiyazhagan, P.; Kovendan, K.; Kumar, P.M.; Panneerselvam, C.; Dinesh, D.; Subramaniam, J.; Rajaganesh, R.; Nicoletti, M.; et al. Neem By-Products in the Fight against Mosquito-Borne Diseases: Biotoxicity of Neem Cake Fractions towards the Rural Malaria Vector Anopheles culicifacies (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dembo, E.G.; Abay, S.M.; Dahiya, N.; Ogboi, J.S.; Christophides, G.K.; Lupidi, G.; Chianese, G.; Lucantoni, L.; Habluetzel, A. Impact of Repeated NeemAzal-Treated Blood Meals on the Fitness of Anopheles stephensi Mosquitoes. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Demissew, A.; Balkew, M.; Girma, M. Larvicidal Activities of Chinaberry, Neem and Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) to an Insecticide Resistant Population of Anopheles arabiensis from Tolay, Southwest Ethiopia. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ejeta, D.; Asme, A.; Asefa, A. Insecticidal Effect of Ethnobotanical Plant Extracts against Anopheles arabiensis under Laboratory Conditions. Malar. J. 2021, 20, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Kala, S.; Naik, S.N.; Patanjali, P.K.; Sogan, N. Neem Oil Water Dispersible Tablet as Effective Larvicide, Ovicide and Oviposition Deterrent against Anopheles culicifacies. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 123, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kumar, A.; Murugan, K.; Madhiyazhagan, P.; Prabhu, K. Spinosad and Neem Seed Kernel Extract as Bio–Controlling Agents for Malarial Vector, Anopheles stephensi and Non–Biting Midge, Chironomus circumdatus. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2011, 4, 614–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rasool, S.; Raza, M.A.; Manzoor, F.; Kanwal, Z.; Riaz, S.; Iqbal, M.J.; Naseem, S. Biosynthesis, Characterization and Anti-Dengue Vector Activity of Silver Nanoparticles Prepared from Azadirachta indica and Citrullus colocynthis. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2020, 7, 200540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sharma, P.; Mohan, L.; Dua, K.K.; Srivastava, C.N. Status of Carbohydrate, Protein and Lipid Profile in the Mosquito Larvae Treated with Certain Phytoextracts. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2011, 4, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Siddiqui, B.S.; Afshan, F.; Gulzar, T.; Sultana, R.; Naqvi, S.N.-H.; Tariq, R.M. Tetracyclic Triterpenoids from the Leaves of Azadirachta indica and Their Insecticidal Activities. Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 2003, 51, 415–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Torres, S.M.; Cruz, N.L.N.D.; Rolim, V.P.D.M.; Cavalcanti, M.I.D.A.; Alves, L.C.; da Silva Júnior, V.A. Cumulative Mortality of Aedes aegypti Larvae Treated with Compounds. Rev. Saude Publica 2014, 48, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rahman, M.M.; Morshed, M.N.; Adnan, S.M.; Howlader, M.T.H. Assessment of Biorational Larvicides and Botanical Oils against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) Larvae in Laboratory Conditions. Heliyon 2024, 10, e31453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yerbanga, R.S.; Rayaisse, J.-B.; Vantaux, A.; Salou, E.; Mouline, K.; Hien, F.; Habluetzel, A.; Dabiré, R.K.; Ouédraogo, J.B.; Solano, P.; et al. Neemazal ® as a Possible Alternative Control Tool for Malaria and African Trypanosomiasis? Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kudom, A.A.; Mensah, B.A.; Botchey, M.A. Aqueous Neem Extract versus Neem Powder on Culex quinquefasciatus: Implications for Control in Anthropogenic Habitats. J. Insect Sci. 2011, 11, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Chandrasekaran, R.; Seetharaman, P.; Krishnan, M.; Gnanasekar, S.; Sivaperumal, S. Carica Papaya (Papaya) Latex: A New Paradigm to Combat against Dengue and Filariasis Vectors Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Nunes, N.N.D.S.; Santana, L.A.; Sampaio, M.U.; Lemos, F.J.; Oliva, M.L. The Component of Carica Papaya Seed Toxic to a Aegypti and the Identification of Tegupain, the Enzyme That Generates It. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Nur Athen, M.H.; Nazri, C.D.; Siti Nazrina, C. Bioassay Studies on the Reaction of Aedes aegypti & Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) on Different Attractants. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 2691–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wahyuni, D. New Bioinsecticide Granules Toxin from Ectract of Papaya (Carica papaya) Seed and Leaf Modified Against Aedes aegypti Larvae. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 23, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nuchuchua, O.; Sakulku, U.; Uawongyart, N.; Puttipipatkhachorn, S.; Soottitantawat, A.; Ruktanonchai, U. In Vitro Characterization and Mosquito (Aedes aegypti) Repellent Activity of Essential-Oils-Loaded Nanoemulsions. AAPS PharmSciTech 2009, 10, 1234–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Sathantriphop, S.; Achee, N.L.; Sanguanpong, U.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. The Effects of Plant Essential Oils on Escape Response and Mortality Rate of Aedes aegypti and Anopheles minimus. J. Vector Ecol. 2015, 40, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Kweka, E.J.; Senthilkumar, A.; Venkatesalu, V. Toxicity of Essential Oil from Indian Borage on the Larvae of the African Malaria Vector Mosquito, Anopheles gambiae. Parasit. Vectors 2012, 5, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Abutaha, N.; AL-mekhlafi, F.A.; Al-Khalifa, M.S.; Wadaan, M.A. Insecticidal Effects of a Novel Polyherbal Formulation (HF7) against Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae). Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Baz, M.M.; Selim, A.; Radwan, I.T.; Alkhaibari, A.M.; Khater, H.F. Larvicidal and Adulticidal Effects of Some Egyptian Oils against Culex pipiens. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 4406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bhoopong, P.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Sukkanon, C. Excito-Repellency of Myristica Fragrans Houtt. and Curcuma longa L. Extracts from Southern Thailand against Aedes aegypti (L.). PeerJ 2022, 10, e13357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Das, N.G.; Dhiman, S.; Talukdar, P.K.; Rabha, B.; Goswami, D.; Veer, V. Synergistic Mosquito-Repellent Activity of Curcuma longa, Pogostemon heyneanus and Zanthoxylum limonella Essential Oils. J. Infect. Public. Health 2015, 8, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Singha, S.; Chandra, G. Mosquito Larvicidal Activity of Some Common Spices and Vegetable Waste on Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles stephensi. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2011, 4, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Akono Ntonga, P.; Baldovini, N.; Mouray, E.; Mambu, L.; Belong, P.; Grellier, P. Activity of Ocimum basilicum, Ocimum canum, and Cymbopogon citratus Essential Oils against Plasmodium falciparum and Mature-Stage Larvae of Anopheles funestus s.s. Parasite 2014, 21, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Balboné, M.; Sawadogo, I.; Soma, D.D.; Drabo, S.F.; Namountougou, M.; Bayili, K.; Romba, R.; Meda, G.B.; Nebié, H.C.R.; Dabire, R.K.; et al. Essential Oils of Plants and Their Combinations as an Alternative Adulticides against Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) Populations. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 19077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Boonyuan, W.; Grieco, J.P.; Bangs, M.J.; Prabaripai, A.; Tantakom, S.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Excito-Repellency of Essential Oils against an Aedes aegypti (L.) Field Population in Thailand. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Bossou, A.D.; Mangelinckx, S.; Yedomonhan, H.; Boko, P.M.; Akogbeto, M.C.; De Kimpe, N.; Avlessi, F.; Sohounhloue, D.C.K. Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Activity of Plant Essential Oils from Benin against Anopheles gambiae (Giles). Parasites Vectors 2013, 6, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Castillo, R.M.; Stashenko, E.; Duque, J.E. Insecticidal and Repellent Activity of Several Plant-Derived Essential Oils Against Aedes aegypti. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2017, 33, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Manh, H.D.; Hue, D.T.; Hieu, N.T.T.; Tuyen, D.T.T.; Tuyet, O.T. The Mosquito Larvicidal Activity of Essential Oils from Cymbopogon and Eucalyptus Species in Vietnam. Insects 2020, 11, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Moungthipmalai, T.; Puwanard, C.; Aungtikun, J.; Sittichok, S.; Soonwera, M. Ovicidal Toxicity of Plant Essential Oils and Their Major Constituents against Two Mosquito Vectors and Their Non-Target Aquatic Predators. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Siriporn, P.; Mayura, S. The Effects of Herbal Essential Oils on the Oviposition-Deterrent and Ovicidal Activities of Aedes aegypti (Linn.), Anopheles dirus (Peyton and Harrison) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say). Trop. Biomed. 2012, 29, 138–150. [Google Scholar]
  107. Wahedi, J.A.; Vincent, V.M.; Pukuma, S.M.; Bawa, I.S.; Agboola, O.O.; Aju-Ahmeh, C.O.; Filgona, J.; Olowoyo, J.O. Phytochemical Screening and Larvicidal Activities of Cymbopogon citratus and Annona senegalensis against Culex quinquefasciatus. Sci. Afr. 2024, 23, e02057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Panneerselvam, C.; Murugan, K.; Kovendan, K.; Kumar, P.M.; Subramaniam, J. Mosquito Larvicidal and Pupicidal Activity of Euphorbia hirta Linn. (Family: Euphorbiaceae) and Bacillus sphaericus against Anopheles stephensi Liston. (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2013, 6, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Panneerselvam, C.; Murugan, K. Adulticidal, Repellent, and Ovicidal Properties of Indigenous Plant Extracts against the Malarial Vector, Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 679–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zahir, A.A.; Rahuman, A.A.; Ba-gavan, A.; Elango, G.; Kamaraj, C. Ok Adult Emergence Inhibition and Adulticidal Activities of Medicinal Plant Extracts against Anopheles stephensi Liston. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2010, 3, 878–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Rahuman, A.A.; Bagavan, A.; Kamaraj, C.; Saravanan, E.; Zahir, A.A.; Elango, G. Efficacy of Larvicidal Botanical Extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol. Res. 2009, 104, 1365–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Coulibaly, F.H.; Rossignol, M.; Haddad, M.; Carrasco, D.; Azokou, A.; Valente, A.; Ginibre, C.; Koné, M.W.; Chandre, F. Biological Effects of Lippia alba Essential Oil against Anopheles gambiae and Aedes aegypti. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ferreira, R.M.A.; Duarte, J.L.; Cruz, R.A.S.; Oliveira, A.E.M.F.M.; Araújo, R.S.; Carvalho, J.C.T.; Mourão, R.H.V.; Souto, R.N.P.; Fernandes, C.P. A Herbal Oil in Water Nano-Emulsion Prepared through an Ecofriendly Approach Affects Two Tropical Disease Vectors. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn. 2019, 29, 778–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ríos, N.; Stashenko, E.E.; Duque, J.E. Evaluation of the Insecticidal Activity of Essential Oils and Their Mixtures against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2017, 61, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Raul, P.K.; Santra, P.; Goswami, D.; Tyagi, V.; Yellappa, C.; Mauka, V.; Devi, R.R.; Chattopadhyay, P.; Jayaram, R.V.; Dwivedi, S.K. Green Synthesis of Carbon Dot Silver Nanohybrids from Fruits and Vegetable’s Peel Waste: Applications as Potent Mosquito Larvicide. Curr. Res. Green. Sustain. Chem. 2021, 4, 100158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yousaf, A.; Zuharah, W.F. Lethal Response of the Dengue Vectors to the Plant Extracts from Family Anacardiaceae. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2015, 5, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kamaraj, C.; Rahuman, A.A. Larvicidal and Adulticidal Potential of Medicinal Plant Extracts from South India against Vectors. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2010, 3, 948–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Govindarajan, M. Larvicidal and Repellent Activities of Sida acuta Burm. F. (Family: Malvaceae) against Three Important Vector Mosquitoes. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2010, 3, 691–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kamaraj, C.; Rahuman, A.A.; Mahapatra, A.; Bagavan, A.; Elango, G. Insecticidal and Larvicidal Activities of Medicinal Plant Extracts against Mosquitoes. Parasitol. Res. 2010, 107, 1337–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Mituiassu, L.M.P.; Serdeiro, M.T.; Vieira, R.R.B.T.; Oliveira, L.S.; Maleck, M. Momordica charantia L. Extracts against Aedes aegypti Larvae. Braz. J. Biol. 2021, 82, e236498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rajkumar, S.; Jebanesan, A. Repellent Activity of Selected Plant Essential Oils against the Malarial Fever Mosquito Anopheles Stephensi. Trop. Biomed. 2007, 24, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  122. de Oliveira, A.P.S.; de Santana Silva, L.L.; de Albuquerque Lima, T.; Pontual, E.V.; de Lima Santos, N.D.; Breitenbach Barroso Coelho, L.C.; do Amaral Ferraz Navarro, D.M.; Zingali, R.B.; Napoleão, T.H.; Paiva, P.M.G. Biotechnological Value of Moringa oleifera Seed Cake as Source of Insecticidal Lectin against Aedes aegypti. Process Biochem. 2016, 51, 1683–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Opoku-Bamfoh, O.; Kwarteng, S.A.; Owusu, F.A.N.; Akpanya, R.; Mensah, K.A.; Badu, M.; Gyamfi, F.Y.; Sogbo, V.; Belford, E.J.D.; Boakye, A.; et al. Repellent and Larvicidal Properties of Selected Indigenous Plants in the Control of Anopheles Mosquitoes. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2024, 61, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Prabhu, K.; Murugan, K.; Nareshkumar, A.; Ramasubramanian, N.; Bragadeeswaran, S. Larvicidal and Repellent Potential of Moringa oleifera against Malarial Vector, Anopheles stephensi Liston (Insecta: Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2011, 1, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Santos, G.K.N.; Dutra, K.A.; Barros, R.A.; da Câmara, C.A.G.; Lira, D.D.; Gusmão, N.B.; Navarro, D.M.A.F. Essential Oils from Alpinia purpurata (Zingiberaceae): Chemical Composition, Oviposition Deterrence, Larvicidal and Antibacterial Activity. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 40, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Santos, N.D.L.; Napoleão, T.H.; Benevides, C.A.; Albuquerque, L.P.; Pontual, E.V.; Oliveira, A.P.S.; Coelho, L.C.B.B.; Navarro, D.M.A.F.; Paiva, P.M.G. Effect of Gamma Irradiation of Moringa oleifera Seed Lectin on Its Larvicidal, Ovicidal, and Oviposition-Stimulant Activities against Aedes aegypti. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 129, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Botelho, A.D.S.; Ferreira, O.O.; de Oliveira, M.S.; Cruz, J.N.; Chaves, S.H.D.R.; do Prado, A.F.; Nascimento, L.D.D.; da Silva, G.A.; Amarante, C.B.D.; Andrade, E.H.D.A. Studies on the Phytochemical Profile of Ocimum basilicum Var. Minimum (L.) Alef. Essential Oil, Its Larvicidal Activity and In Silico Interaction with Acetylcholinesterase against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Dris, D.; Tine-Djebbar, F.; Bouabida, H.; Soltani, N. Chemical Composition and Activity of an Ocimum basilicum Essential Oil on Culex pipiens Larvae: Toxicological, Biometrical and Biochemical Aspects. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2017, 113, 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Luz, T.R.S.A.; Leite, J.A.C.; de Mesquita, L.S.S.; Bezerra, S.A.; Gomes Ribeiro, E.C.; Silveira, D.P.B.; de Mesquita, J.W.C.; do Amaral, F.M.M.; Coutinho, D.F. Seasonal Variation in the Chemical Composition and Larvicidal Activity against Aedes aegypti L. of Essential Oils from Brazilian Amazon. Exp. Parasitol. 2022, 243, 108405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Mahendran, G.; Vimolmangkang, S. Chemical Compositions, Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, and Mosquito Larvicidal Activity of Ocimum americanum L. and Ocimum basilicum L. Leaf Essential Oils. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 2023, 23, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Chalannavar, R.K.; Hurinanthan, V.; Singh, A.; Venugopala, K.N.; Gleiser, R.M.; Baijnath, H.; Odhav, B. The Antimosquito Properties of Extracts from Flowering Plants in South Africa. Trop. Biomed. 2013, 30, 559–569. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  132. Fikrig, K.; Johnson, B.J.; Fish, D.; Ritchie, S.A. Assessment of Synthetic Floral-Based Attractants and Sugar Baits to Capture Male and Female Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Jhaiaun, P.; Panthawong, A.; Sukkanon, C.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Avoidance Behavior to Guava Leaf Volatile Oil by Three Medically Important Mosquito Vectors. J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 2534–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Luu, H.V.L.; Nguyen, H.H.; Satyal, P.; Vo, V.H.; Ngo, G.H.; Pham, V.T.; Setzer, W.N. Chemical Composition, Larvicidal and Molluscicidal Activity of Essential Oils of Six Guava Cultivars Grown in Vietnam. Plants 2023, 12, 2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Müller, G.C.; Beier, J.C.; Traore, S.F.; Toure, M.B.; Traore, M.M.; Bah, S.; Doumbia, S.; Schlein, Y. Field Experiments of Anopheles gambiae Attraction to Local Fruits/Seedpods and Flowering Plants in Mali to Optimize Strategies for Malaria Vector Control in Africa Using Attractive Toxic Sugar Bait Methods. Malar. J. 2010, 9, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Netshituni, V.T.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Dondofema, F.; Dalu, T. Assessing the Effects of Native and Alien Plant Ash on Mosquito Abundance. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Assemie, A.; Gemeda, T. Larvicidal Activities of Allium sativum L. and Zingiber officinale Rosc. Extracts against Filariasis Vectors in Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. Biomed. Res. Int. 2023, 2023, 6636837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Bilal, H.; Sahar, S.; Din, S. Bio-Pesticides: New Tool for the Control of Aedes (stegomyia) Albopictus (Culicidae: Diptera) in Pakistan. J. Arthropod Borne Dis. 2017, 11, 278–285. [Google Scholar]
  139. Govindarajan, M. Larvicidal and Repellent Properties of Some Essential Oils against Culex tritaeniorhynchus Giles and Anopheles subpictus Grassi (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2011, 4, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Madreseh-Ghahfarokhi, S.; Dehghani-Samani, A.; Pirali, Y.; Dehghani-Samani, A. Zingiber Officinalis and Eucalyptus Globulus, Potent Lethal/Repellent Agents against Rhipicephalus Bursa, Probable Carrier for Zoonosis. J. Arthropod Borne Dis. 2019, 13, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Restu Wijaya, M.; Halijah, I.; Nurulhusna, A.H.; Khalijah, A. Efficacy of Four Species of Zingiberaceae Extract Against Vectors of Dengue, Chikungunya and Filariasis. Trop. Biomed. 2017, 34, 375–387. [Google Scholar]
  142. Zent, S. Acculturation and Ethnobotanical Knowledge Loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela, a Demonstration of a Quantitative Method of the Empirical Study of Traditional Environmental Knowledge Change. In Biocultural Diversity, Linkage Language, Knowledge, and the Environment; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 190–211. [Google Scholar]
  143. Willcox, M.; Benoit-Vical, F.; Fowler, D.; Bourdy, G.; Burford, G.; Giani, S.; Graziose, R.; Houghton, P.; Randrianarivelojosia, M.; Rasoanaivo, P. Do Ethnobotanical and Laboratory Data Predict Clinical Safety and Efficacy of Anti-Malarial Plants? Malar. J. 2011, 10, S7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. INSEE. Égalité Femmes-Hommes: Chiffres Clés de La Guadeloupe|INSEE. Available online: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/7938592?sommaire=7938604 (accessed on 29 September 2024).
  145. Women and Plants. Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320347090_Women_and_Plants_Gender_Relations_in_Biodiversity_Management_and_Conservation (accessed on 29 May 2025).
  146. Voeks, R.A. Are Women Reservoirs of Traditional Plant Knowledge? Gender, Ethnobotany and Globalization in Northeast Brazil. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2007, 28, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Turner, N.J.; Ignace, M.B.; Ignace, R. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 1275–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Pavela, R. Essential Oils for the Development of Eco-Friendly Mosquito Larvicides: A Review. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 76, 174–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Cassino, M.F.; Alves, R.P.; Levis, C.; Watling, J.; Junqueira, A.B.; Shock, M.P.; Ferreira, M.J.; Caetano Andrade, V.L.; Furquim, L.P.; Coelho, S.D.; et al. Ethnobotany and Ethnoecology Applied to Historical Ecology. In Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology; Springer Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 187–208. ISBN 978-1-4939-8919-5. [Google Scholar]
  150. Leyva, M.; Marquetti, M.d.C.; Tacoronte, J.E.; Scull, R.; Tiomno, O.; Mesa, A.; Montada, D. Actividad larvicida de aceites esenciales de plantas contra Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae). Rev. Biomed. 2009, 20, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
  151. Angulo, E.; Diagne, C.; Ballesteros-Mejia, L.; Adamjy, T.; Ahmed, D.A.; Akulov, E.; Banerjee, A.K.; Capinha, C.; Dia, C.A.K.M.; Dobigny, G.; et al. Non-English Languages Enrich Scientific Knowledge: The Example of Economic Costs of Biological Invasions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 144441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Abaul, J.; Bourgeois, P.; Bessiere, J.M. Chemical Composition of the Essential Oils of Chemotypes of Pimenta racemosa Var. Racemosa (P. Miller) J. W. Moore (Bois d’Inde) of Guadeloupe (F.W.I.). Flavour. Fragr. J. 1995, 10, 319–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Kaura, T.; Mewara, A.; Zaman, K.; Sharma, A.; Agrawal, S.K.; Thakur, V.; Garg, A.; Sehgal, R. Utilizing Larvicidal and Pupicidal Efficacy of Eucalyptus and Neem Oil against Aedes Mosquito: An Approach for Mosquito Control. Trop. Parasitol. 2019, 9, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Teshome, Z.; Teka, A.; Animut, A.; Arage, M.; Aklilu, E.; Giday, M. Ethnobotanical Study of Plants Used for Traditional Control of Mosquitoes and Other Arthropod Pests in the Ghibe Valley, Southwest Ethiopia. Trop. Med. Health 2025, 53, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. de Boer, H.J.; Ichim, M.C.; Newmaster, S.G. DNA Barcoding and Pharmacovigilance of Herbal Medicines. Drug Saf. 2015, 38, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Guzman, M.G.; Halstead, S.B.; Artsob, H.; Buchy, P.; Farrar, J.; Gubler, D.J.; Hunsperger, E.; Kroeger, A.; Margolis, H.S.; Martínez, E.; et al. Dengue: A Continuing Global Threat. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, S7–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Leyva-Silva, M.I.; French, L.; Pino, O.; Montada, D.; Morejón, G.; Marquetti, M.d.C. Plantas con actividad insecticida: Una alternativa natural contra mosquitos. Rev. Biomed. 2017, 28, 139–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
Biology 14 00888 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart of the ethnobotanical survey methodology for assessing plant-based vector control knowledge in Guadeloupe. The survey consists of five main sections: (i) socio-demographic characteristics of participants (grey, Section 1), (ii) description of their environmental context (gray, Section 2), (iii) assessment of plant identification skills (green, Section 3), (iv) evaluation of plant usage knowledge (green, Section 4), and (v) assessment of knowledge on vector control plants (VCP) (orange, Section 5). The “bis” sections (lighter shades) provide an in-depth assessment of participants’ knowledge of 38 documented plants. Arrows indicate the flow of the questionnaire based on participants’ responses (Yes/No), with a pre-selection step ensuring that only participants with recognized plant knowledge proceed further in the survey.
Figure 2. Flowchart of the ethnobotanical survey methodology for assessing plant-based vector control knowledge in Guadeloupe. The survey consists of five main sections: (i) socio-demographic characteristics of participants (grey, Section 1), (ii) description of their environmental context (gray, Section 2), (iii) assessment of plant identification skills (green, Section 3), (iv) evaluation of plant usage knowledge (green, Section 4), and (v) assessment of knowledge on vector control plants (VCP) (orange, Section 5). The “bis” sections (lighter shades) provide an in-depth assessment of participants’ knowledge of 38 documented plants. Arrows indicate the flow of the questionnaire based on participants’ responses (Yes/No), with a pre-selection step ensuring that only participants with recognized plant knowledge proceed further in the survey.
Biology 14 00888 g002
Figure 3. Plant identification (a); Frequency of plants using (b); Types of plants using (c); Plants supply locations (d).
Figure 3. Plant identification (a); Frequency of plants using (b); Types of plants using (c); Plants supply locations (d).
Biology 14 00888 g003aBiology 14 00888 g003b
Figure 4. Heatmaps of the percentage of plants selected by pre-selected users for Sections bis 3, 4, and 5, along with their statistical indices: Frequency of Citation (FC) and Fidelity Level (FL). (a) Percentage of identified plants in Section 3 bis; (b) Percentage of used plants in Section 4 bis; (c) Percentage of plants selected for their anti-mosquito properties; (d) Fidelity level of selected plants in the Section 3 bis; (e) Fidelity level of selected plants in the Section 4 bis; (f) Fidelity level of selected plants in the Section 5 bis; (g) Frequency of citation index in Section 3 bis; (h) Frequency of citation index in Section 4 bis; (i) Frequency of citation index in Section 5 bis.
Figure 4. Heatmaps of the percentage of plants selected by pre-selected users for Sections bis 3, 4, and 5, along with their statistical indices: Frequency of Citation (FC) and Fidelity Level (FL). (a) Percentage of identified plants in Section 3 bis; (b) Percentage of used plants in Section 4 bis; (c) Percentage of plants selected for their anti-mosquito properties; (d) Fidelity level of selected plants in the Section 3 bis; (e) Fidelity level of selected plants in the Section 4 bis; (f) Fidelity level of selected plants in the Section 5 bis; (g) Frequency of citation index in Section 3 bis; (h) Frequency of citation index in Section 4 bis; (i) Frequency of citation index in Section 5 bis.
Biology 14 00888 g004
Table 2. Age distribution of respondents across work sectors by age group.
Table 2. Age distribution of respondents across work sectors by age group.
Work Sector18–35 Years Old36–50 Years Old51–65 Years Old66 Years and MoreTotal
Other sector52.8% (56/106)41.4% (12/29)44.0% (22/50)61.3% (19/31)50.5% (109/216)
Farming sector0.9% (1/106)6.9% (2/29)6.0% (3/50)6.4% (2/31)3.7% (8/216)
Education sector4.7% (5/106)6.9% (2/29)32.0% (16/50)9.7% (3/31)12.0% (26/216)
Research sector14.2% (15/106)24.1% (7/29)8.0% (4/50)9.7% (3/31)13.4% (29/216)
Table 3. Comparison of vector-control properties from literature and ethnobotanical survey: study based on the 38 know-how plants list.
Table 3. Comparison of vector-control properties from literature and ethnobotanical survey: study based on the 38 know-how plants list.
Scientifics Names Plants (Family)Anti-Mosquito Plants Reported in This Study (%)Plants Parts Reported in the LitteratureType of Extracts UsedTarget Mosquitoes SpeciesBioassays PerformedExperimental Condition: Field (F), Laboratory (L), or
In Vitro (V)
References
Aloe barbadensis Mill.
(Asphodelaceae)
3.3LeavesPowderAedes aegyptiLarvicidalL[62]
Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.)
B.L.Burtt & R.M.Sm.
(Zingiberaceae)
1.7FlowersEssential oilAedes aegyptiRepellent, Irritant, ToxicityL[63]
Anethum graveolens L.
(Apiaceae)
0------
Annona muricata L.
(Annonaceae)
1.7Seeds, Leaves, StemsAqueous, Oils, EthanolicCulex quiquefaciatus, Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegyptiAdulticidal, LarvicidalL[64,65]
Annona squamosa L.
(Annonaceae)
0Seeds, Leaves, Stems, Bark, Root BarkAqueous, Oils, Organics, MethanolicCulex quiquefaciatus, Aedes albopictus, Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi, Culex tritaeniorrhynchus and Anopheles gambiaeAdulticidal, LarvicidalL[64,65,66,67,68,69,70]
Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg
(Moraceae)
25------
Azadirachta indica A. Juss.
(Meliaceae)
0Seeds, Leaves, Neem cake, Seed, Fruits and BarkOrganics, commercial preparation, Powder, Smoked leaves, Commercial oil, Oil cream, Emulsified neem oil, Aqueous, Crude extract of leaves and powders, Essential oilsAnopheles aquasalis, Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles stephensi, Culex quinquefasciatus, Anopheles arabiensis, Aedes aegypti, Anopheles culicifacies, Anopheles stephensi, Chironomus circumdatus, Anopheles arabiensi, Anopheles gambiae, Aedes aegypti, Aedes family and Anopheles coluzziiBlood-feeding, Repellent test, Larvicidal test, Survival test (larvae), Ovicidal test, Adulticidal test, Oviposition test, Pupicidal test, Attract and kill testL, F and V[19,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86]
Bixa orellana L.
(Bixaceae)
5------
Carica papaya L.
(Caricaceae)
0Seeds, Leaves, Fruit flesh and peels, Granules, Stems, LatexPowder, Ethanolic, Organic and Essential oilAedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus and Culex quinquefasciatusLarvicidal test, Mosquito attractive testL[64,83,87,88,89,90]
Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty
(Poaceae)
6.7NDNanoemulsions of essential oilAedes aegypti and Anopheles minimusRepellent test, Mosquito Repellent, Efficiency assayL[91,92]
Citrus × aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle
(Rutaceae)
10------
Coleus amboinicus Lour.
(Lamiaceae)
10LeavesEssential oilAnopheles gambiaeLatvicidal test, Adulticidal testL[93]
Cucumis anguria L.
(Cucurbitaceae)
0------
Curcuma longa L.
(Zingiberaceae)
1.7Tuber, RhizomesCrude and chloroform: methanol (1:1), Essential oil, Organic, Formulation (7 plants)Culex pipiens, Anopheles stephensi, Culex quinquefasciatus, Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti L and F[94,95,96,97,98]
Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf
(Poaceae)
93.3Leaves, Stems, Roots, Whole plantsAqueous, Ethanolic, Essential oilCulex quinquefasciatus, Aedes aegypti, Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles funestus, Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Ae. aegypti Anopheles dirus, Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles darlingiLarvicidal test, Repellent test, Adulticidal test, Ovicidal test, Pupicidal test, Oviposition-deterent testF[99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107]
Dianthera pectoralis (Jacq.) J.F.Gmel.
(Acanthaceae)
0------
Elymus repens (L.) Gould
(Poaceae)
0------
Eryngium foetidum L.
(Apiaceae)
1.7------
Euphorbia hirta L.
(Euphorbiaceae)
0LeavesOrganic solventAnopheles stephensiLarvicidal test, Puppicidal test, Adulticidal test, Adult emergence inhibition test, Ovicidal test, Repellent testL[108,109,110]
Hibiscus × rosa-sinensis L.
(Malvaceae)
0FlowersOrganic extractCulex quinquefasciatusLarvicidal testL[111]
Laportea aestuans (L.) Chew
(Urticaceae)
1.7------
Lippia alba (Mill.) N.E.Br.
ex Britton & P.Wilson
(Verbenaceae)
1.7Plant material, LeavesEssential oilAedes aegypti, Aedes aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus larvae, Anopheles gambiae and Aedes aegyptiLarvicidal test, Adulticidal test, Repellent test, Pupicidal test, Oviposition-deterentL[103,112,113,114]
Malpighia emarginata DC.
(Malpighiaceae)
0------
Mangifera indica L.
(Anacardiaceae)
1.7Stems, Peels, Leaves and BarkNDAedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Anopheles stephensi and Culex quinquefasciatusLarvicidal testL[54,115,116]
Mimosa pudica L.
(Fabaceae)
0LeavesOrganic extractCulex gelidus Theobald and Culex quinquefasciatusLarvicidal test, Adulticidal test, Repellent test [117]
Mirabilis jalapa L.
(Nyctaginaceae)
0LeavesOrganic extractCulex quinquefasciatus, Aedes aegypti and Anopheles stephensiLarvicidal testL[118]
Momordica charantia L.
(Cucurbitaceae)
0Leaves, Stems, flowers, Fruits, Fresh leavesOrganic, Crude, Essential oilAedes aegypti, Culex gelidus, Culex quinquefasciatus, Anopheles stephensiLarvicidal testL[64,119,120,121]
Moringa oleifera Lam.
(Moringaceae)
1.7Seeds, LeavesPowder, Aquaeous, Methanolic, Essential oil, Water extract of Moringa oleifera seeds (WEMOS)Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi and Anopheles gambiaeLarvicidal test, Ovicidal test, Oviposition test, Pupicidal test, Egg Hatching test, Repellent test, Forearm attraction testL[122,123,124,125,126]
Neurolaena lobata (L.) R. Br. ex Cass. (Asteraceae)3.3------
Ocimum basilicum L.
(Lamiaceae)
5Leaves, Aerial partsEssential oilCulex pipiens, Anopheles stephensi, Aedes aegypti and Anopheles gambiaeLarvicidal test, Adulticidal test, Adults emergence inhibition test, Repellent test, Forearm testL[110,123,127,128,129,130]
Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. & Thonn.
(Phyllanthaceae)
0Leaves and stem of P. amarusOrganicAnopheles stephensi, Aedes aegypti, Culex tritaeniorhynchus, and Culex quinquefasciatusLarvicidal test, Repellent testL[68,69]
Pimenta racemosa (Mill.)
J. W. Moore
(Myrtaceae)
18.3------
Psidium guajava L.
(Myrtaceae)
0Plant materials, Leaves, Fruits, Fresh leaves, Guava,crude dried residues, ethanolic, ash, essential oil, nectar, fruit solutionAedes aegypti, Anopheles minimus, Anopheles epiroticus, Culex. Quinquefasciatus, Anopheles arabiensis, Aedes albopictus, Culex fuscocephala, Anopheles stephensi, Anopheles gambiae, Culex spp. and Anopheles spp.Larvicidal test, Adulticidal test, Repellent test, Free-flight attraction assays, Attract and kill testL[121,131,132,133,134,135,136]
Senna alata (L.) Roxb. (Fabaceae)1.7------
Sphagneticola trilobata (L.) Pruski (Asteraceae)0------
Tetradenia riparia (Hochst.) Codd (Lamiaceae)3.3------
Zanthoxylum caribaeum Gaertn. (Rutaceae)0------
Zingiber officinale Roscoe
(Zingiberaceae)
1.7Rhizome, Roots, Fresh samples, Fresh rhizomes Essential oils, Formulations (7 plants), OrganicCulex tritaeniorhynchus, Anopheles subpictus, Culex pipiens, Aedes aegypti, Anopheles funestus, Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles pharoensis, Culex antennatus, Culex quinquefasciatus, Culex theileri and Aedes albopictusLarvicidal test, Repellent test, Adultiticidal test, Ovicidal test, Identification of vectors test, Olfactometry-bioassys testL[94,101,137,138,139,140,141]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duchaudé, Y.; Brelle, L.; Sylvestre, M.; Vega-Rúa, A.; Cebrián-Torrejón, G. Contrasted Ethnobotanical and Literature Knowledge of Anti-Mosquito Plants from Guadeloupe. Biology 2025, 14, 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14070888

AMA Style

Duchaudé Y, Brelle L, Sylvestre M, Vega-Rúa A, Cebrián-Torrejón G. Contrasted Ethnobotanical and Literature Knowledge of Anti-Mosquito Plants from Guadeloupe. Biology. 2025; 14(7):888. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14070888

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duchaudé, Yolène, Laura Brelle, Muriel Sylvestre, Anubis Vega-Rúa, and Gerardo Cebrián-Torrejón. 2025. "Contrasted Ethnobotanical and Literature Knowledge of Anti-Mosquito Plants from Guadeloupe" Biology 14, no. 7: 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14070888

APA Style

Duchaudé, Y., Brelle, L., Sylvestre, M., Vega-Rúa, A., & Cebrián-Torrejón, G. (2025). Contrasted Ethnobotanical and Literature Knowledge of Anti-Mosquito Plants from Guadeloupe. Biology, 14(7), 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14070888

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