BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: A study was conducted to characterise larval habitats and to determine spatial heterogeneity of the Anopheles mosquito larvae. The study was conducted from May to June 1999 in nine villages along the Kenyan coast. METHODS: Aquatic habitats were sampled by use of standard dipping technique. The habitats were characterised based on size, pH, distance to the nearest house, coverage of canopy, surface debris, algae and emergent plants, turbidity, substrate, and habitat type. RESULTS: A total of 110 aquatic habitats like stream pools (n=10); puddles (n=65); tire tracks (n=5); ponds (n=5) and swamps (n=25) were sampled in nine villages located in three districts of the Kenyan coast. A total of 7,263 Anopheles mosquito larvae were collected, 63.9% were early instars and 36.1% were late instars. Morphological identification of the III and IV instar larvae by use of microscopy yielded 90.66% (n=2377) Anopheles gambiae Complex, 0.88% (n=23) An. funestus, An. coustani 7.63% (n=200), An. rivulorum 0.42% (n=11), An. pharoensis 0.19% (n=5), An. swahilicus 0.08% (n=2), An. wilsoni 0.04% (n=1) and 0.11% (n=3) were unidentified. A subset of the An. gambiae Complex larvae identified morphologically, was further analysed using rDNA-PCR technique resulting in 68.22% (n=1290) An. gambiae s.s., 7.93% (n=150) An. arabiensis and 23.85% (n=451) An. merus. Multiple logistic regression model showed that emergent plants (p = 0.019), and floating debris (p = 0.038) were the best predictors of An. gambiae larval abundance in these habitats. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSION: Habitat type, floating debris and emergent plants were found to be the key factors determining the presence of Anopheles larvae in the habitats. For effective larval control, the type of habitat should be considered and most productive habitat type be given a priority in the mosquito abatement programme.
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: A study was conducted to characterise larval habitats and to determine spatial heterogeneity of the Anopheles mosquito larvae. The study was conducted from May to June 1999 in nine villages along the Kenyan coast. METHODS: Aquatic habitats were sampled by use of standard dipping technique. The habitats were characterised based on size, pH, distance to the nearest house, coverage of canopy, surface debris, algae and emergent plants, turbidity, substrate, and habitat type. RESULTS: A total of 110 aquatic habitats like stream pools (n=10); puddles (n=65); tire tracks (n=5); ponds (n=5) and swamps (n=25) were sampled in nine villages located in three districts of the Kenyan coast. A total of 7,263 Anopheles mosquito larvae were collected, 63.9% were early instars and 36.1% were late instars. Morphological identification of the III and IV instar larvae by use of microscopy yielded 90.66% (n=2377) Anopheles gambiae Complex, 0.88% (n=23) An. funestus, An. coustani 7.63% (n=200), An. rivulorum 0.42% (n=11), An. pharoensis 0.19% (n=5), An. swahilicus 0.08% (n=2), An. wilsoni 0.04% (n=1) and 0.11% (n=3) were unidentified. A subset of the An. gambiae Complex larvae identified morphologically, was further analysed using rDNA-PCR technique resulting in 68.22% (n=1290) An. gambiae s.s., 7.93% (n=150) An. arabiensis and 23.85% (n=451) An. merus. Multiple logistic regression model showed that emergent plants (p = 0.019), and floating debris (p = 0.038) were the best predictors of An. gambiae larval abundance in these habitats. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSION: Habitat type, floating debris and emergent plants were found to be the key factors determining the presence of Anopheles larvae in the habitats. For effective larval control, the type of habitat should be considered and most productive habitat type be given a priority in the mosquito abatement programme.
Authors: John E Gimnig; Maurice Ombok; Samson Otieno; Michael G Kaufman; John M Vulule; Edward D Walker Journal: J Med Entomol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.278
Authors: Charles M Mbogo; Joseph M Mwangangi; Joseph Nzovu; Weidong Gu; Guiyan Yan; James T Gunter; Chris Swalm; Joseph Keating; James L Regens; Josephat I Shililu; John I Githure; John C Beier Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Joseph M Mwangangi; Charles M Mbogo; Joseph G Nzovu; John I Githure; Guiyun Yan; John C Beier Journal: J Am Mosq Control Assoc Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 0.917
Authors: Isabel Byrne; Kallista Chan; Edgar Manrique; Jo Lines; Rosine Z Wolie; Fedra Trujillano; Gabriel Jimenez Garay; Miguel Nunez Del Prado Cortez; Hugo Alatrista-Salas; Eleanore Sternberg; Jackie Cook; Raphael N'Guessan; Alphonsine Koffi; Ludovic P Ahoua Alou; Nombre Apollinaire; Louisa A Messenger; Mojca Kristan; Gabriel Carrasco-Escobar; Kimberly Fornace Journal: J Environ Public Health Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Steven Gowelo; James Chirombo; Constantianus J M Koenraadt; Themba Mzilahowa; Henk van den Berg; Willem Takken; Robert S McCann Journal: Acta Trop Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 3.112
Authors: Joseph M Mwangangi; Charles M Mbogo; Benedict O Orindi; Ephantus J Muturi; Janet T Midega; Joseph Nzovu; Hellen Gatakaa; John Githure; Christian Borgemeister; Joseph Keating; John C Beier Journal: Malar J Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Marianne E Sinka; Michael J Bangs; Sylvie Manguin; Maureen Coetzee; Charles M Mbogo; Janet Hemingway; Anand P Patil; Will H Temperley; Peter W Gething; Caroline W Kabaria; Robi M Okara; Thomas Van Boeckel; H Charles J Godfray; Ralph E Harbach; Simon I Hay Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Bryson A Ndenga; Jemimah A Simbauni; Jenard P Mbugi; Andrew K Githeko; Ulrike Fillinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lucy S Tusting; Julie Thwing; David Sinclair; Ulrike Fillinger; John Gimnig; Kimberly E Bonner; Christian Bottomley; Steven W Lindsay Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-08-29