| Literature DB >> 20028559 |
Diego Ayala1, Carlo Costantini, Kenji Ose, Guy C Kamdem, Christophe Antonio-Nkondjio, Jean-Pierre Agbor, Parfait Awono-Ambene, Didier Fontenille, Frédéric Simard.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suitability of environmental conditions determines a species distribution in space and time. Understanding and modelling the ecological niche of mosquito disease vectors can, therefore, be a powerful predictor of the risk of exposure to the pathogens they transmit. In Africa, five anophelines are responsible for over 95% of total malaria transmission. However, detailed knowledge of the geographic distribution and ecological requirements of these species is to date still inadequate.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20028559 PMCID: PMC2805691 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-307
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Topographic map of Cameroon. Localities sampled for the mosquito domestic fauna are shown as dark dots (N = 386) among all the recorded populated places present across Cameroon shown as gray dots (N = 10,700). Dotted lines delimit the main bio-geographic domains [31].
1), the boundary being placed so as to maximize the P/E difference between them and limit overlap in P/E values.
Anopheline species recorded in 386 villages from Cameroon
| Species | Presence Villages | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| 308 | ||
| 205 | ||
| 191 | ||
| 38 | ||
| 37 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 15 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
Asterisks identify known malaria vectors.
Figure 2Habitat suitability maps for the five major malaria vectors in Cameroon. Dots represent species presence points used for the ENFA: (A) An. gambiae; (B) An. funestus; (C) An. arabiensis; (D) An. moucheti and (E) An. nili. Different colours identify the four classes of habitat quality.
Contribution of 17 eco-geographical variables to the Marginality and Specialization factors of the ENFA for five major malaria vectors in Cameroon.
| MARGINALITY1 | SPECIALIZATION2 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Values | 1.109 | 1.186 | 1.763 | 1.482 | 1.265 | 0.691 | 0.638 | 0.259 | 0.291 | 0.437 |
| Cropland | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | 0 | * | * | 0 | * |
| Distance to water bodies | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Distance to localities | ------- | ------ | ---- | ------ | ------- | * | 0 | 0 | * | * |
| Distance to roads | ----- | ---- | --- | --- | ---- | * | * | 0 | ** | * |
| Evapotranspiration | + | ++ | ++++ | --- | -- | * | ** | ******* | ********* | ********* |
| Evergreen Forest | -- | --- | --- | ++ | + | ***** | **** | * | * | ** |
| Sunlight exposure | + | + | +++ | ---- | --- | ***** | ** | * | *** | ** |
| Forest/savannas mosaic | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rainfall | 0 | -- | --- | ++ | ++ | ***** | ****** | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dry savannas | ++ | ++ | ++ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Deciduous woodland | + | ++ | 0 | 0 | ++ | 0 | * | * | 0 | 0 |
| Temperature | + | + | ++ | 0 | - | *** | *** | * | ** | * |
| Elevation | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | * | 0 | 0 | * | * |
| Aspect | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Slope | - | - | - | - | -- | * | * | 0 | 0 | * |
| Wind speed | ++ | +++ | +++ | + | + | ** | **** | ******* | * | 0 |
| Water vapor pressure | - | -- | --- | +++ | ++ | * | ** | * | 0 | ** |
Percentages indicate the amount of total variance explained by each factor.
1 The symbol "+" indicates that the focal species was found in locations with higher values than average for that EGV. The symbol "-" indicates the reverse. The greater the number of symbols, the higher the marginality, with "0" denoting weak marginality.
2 The symbol "*" indicates that the focal species occupied a narrower range of values for the EGV than those available in the reference set (i.e. specialization). The greater the number of symbols, the higher the specialization, with "0" denoting no specialization.
Model evaluation statistics for the habitat suitability maps of five major malaria vectors in Cameroon.
| 0.46 ± 0.13 | 0.38 ± 0.13 | 0.67 ± 0.33 | 1 | |
| 0.50 ± 0.17 | 0.42 ± 0.16 | 0.60 ± 0.29 | 1 | |
| 0.43 ± 0.17 | 0.34 ± 0.17 | 0.24 ± 0.29 | 0.88 ± 0.10 | |
| 0.59 ± 0.39 | 0.55 ± 0.38 | 0.28 ± 0.54 | 0.68 ± 0.54 | |
| 0.53 ± 0.32 | 0.49 ± 0.32 | 0.21 ± 0.48 | 0.81 ± 0.24 | |
Higher mean values indicate higher consistency with the evaluation data sets. The lower the standard deviation, the more robust the predictions.
1 AVI varies from 0 to 1; 2 CVI varies from 0 to AVI; 3 Boyce's indices vary from -1 to 1, with 0 indicating a random model.
Figure 3Coefficients of the discriminant function differentiating the ecological niche of pairs of major malaria vectors based on 17 eco-geographical variables.
Figure 4Ordination biplot diagram showing the dispersion of ten malaria vectors and 14 eco-geographical variables on the first two canonical axes of a Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Crosses represent the average niche centroid for each mosquito species. In brackets the EGV contribution to total species variance, and the total species variance explained by each canonical axis.
Species tolerance from Canonical Correspondence Analysis
| Species | Axis 1 (75.1%) | Axis 2 (6.7%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.98 | 1.01 | |
| 0.89 | 1.03 | |
| 0.46 | 1.00 | |
| 0.82 | 0.90 | |
| 0.53 | 0.80 | |
| 0.65 | 0.92 | |
| 0.72 | 0.89 | |
| 0.78 | 0.71 | |
| 1.01 | 0.71 | |
| 0.92 | 0.78 |
Species tolerance as root mean of squared deviation for species through the first two axes.