| Literature DB >> 23773359 |
J Derek Charlwood1, Nelson Cuamba, Elsa Ve Tomás, Olivier Jt Briët.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the survival strategies of malaria vectors at the edges of their distribution, where they are under stress from environmental conditions, may lead to the development of novel control techniques and may help predict the effects of climate change on these mosquitoes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23773359 PMCID: PMC3691763 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-208
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Location of Linga Linga relative to Furvela.
Figure 2Location of sampled houses in Linga Linga near the seasonal pond. Numbers correspond to house identifiers listed in Table 2.
Collection results for the 12 most sampled houses
| | | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7264 | 4 | 222 | 105 | 403 | 4 | 178 | 14 | 33 | 50 | 92 | 87 | 107 |
| 7280 | 1 | 134 | 97 | 201 | 36 | 124 | 8 | 25 | 48 | 42 | 55 | 63 |
| 7281 | 2 | 195 | 92 | 331 | 16 | 125 | 17 | 27 | 107 | 153 | 70 | 89 |
| 7267 | 4 | 135 | 82 | 654 | 1 | 241 | 15 | 47 | 125 | 164 | 143 | 163 |
| 7265 | 1 | 166 | 78 | 105 | 0 | 92 | 6 | 13 | 17 | 12 | 27 | 29 |
| 7289 | 3 | 96 | 73 | 97 | 1 | 130 | 6 | 14 | 14 | 64 | 36 | 62 |
| 7271 | 1 | 210 | 67 | 47 | 0 | 129 | 4 | 27 | 35 | 40 | 66 | 92 |
| 7266 | 2 | 183 | 63 | 214 | 6 | 44 | 1 | 12 | 58 | 123 | 44 | 40 |
| 7269 | 2 | 129 | 48 | 1215 | 4 | 92 | 14 | 24 | 120 | 337 | 55 | 38 |
| 7284 | 1 | 172 | 46 | 60 | 0 | 45 | 2 | 11 | 28 | 10 | 26 | 31 |
| 7268 | 1 | 139 | 26 | 48 | 4 | 34 | 6 | 14 | 54 | 208 | 20 | 31 |
| 7290 | 1 | 200 | 18 | 8 | 0 | 31 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
The number of collections is indicated by n.
Comparison of collection results between the southern end and the middle of the peninsula
| n | 56 | 47 | 12 | 5 |
| 0.07 | 5.40 | 0.08 | 0.00 | |
| 0.02 | 6.57 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 5.09 | 1.87 | 18.17 | 29.60 | |
| 1.04 | 3.43 | 0.42 | 0.00 | |
Numbers indicate density per collection. The number of collections is indicated by n.
Regression coefficients of mosquito density depending on house characteristics
| Distance from pond (m) | −0.018** | −0.009* | −0.001 | −0.005 | −0.003 | −0.011 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Inhabitants | 0.567** | −0.511*** | 0.157* | 0.173 | −0.008 | 0.069 | 0.090** | 0.109 |
α: ***0.001, **0.01, *0.05.
Figure 3density, and proportion gravid and rainfall over the study period. a) An. funestus density in light trap collections. The green line corresponds to females and the red line corresponds to males. b) Proportion of unfed An. funestus females in light trap collections. Black dots indicate the mean and bars indicate the 95% confidence interval. c) An. funestus density in exit collections. The green line corresponds to females and the red line corresponds to males. d) Proportion of unfed An. funestus females in exit collections. Black dots indicate the mean and bars indicate the 95% confidence interval. e) Weekly rainfall in mm measured in Linga Linga. f) Weekly rainfall in mm measured in Maxixe.
Figure 4density in Linga Linga and weather by ISO week over 2010. a) An. funestus density in light trap collections. The green line corresponds to females and the red line corresponds to males. b) Temperature (T) in degrees Celsius averaged by week. The red line corresponds to the daily maximum, the black to the daily mean, and the blue to the daily minimum. c) Per cent relative humidity (RH) averaged by week. The red line corresponds to the daily maximum, the black to the daily mean, and the blue to the daily minimum. d) Weekly rainfall in mm.
Comparison of the distribution of abdominal state between seasons depending on collection type
| Collections | | 85 | | 11 | | | | 86 | | 16 | | |
| Unfed | 75.5 | 219 | 71.6 | 355 | 1.06 | NS | 77.8 | 351 | 89.0 | 2876 | 0.87 | *** |
| Part fed | 8.3 | 24 | 5.4 | 27 | 1.52 | NS | 2.7 | 12 | 0.6 | 19 | 4.53 | *** |
| Fed | 2.1 | 6 | 1.8 | 9 | 1.14 | NS | 1.6 | 7 | 3.3 | 108 | 0.46 | * |
| Semigravid | 0.7 | 2 | 0.2 | 1 | 3.42 | NS | 3.1 | 14 | 3.6 | 117 | 0.86 | NS |
| Gravid | 13.4 | 39 | 21.0 | 104 | 0.64 | ** | 14.9 | 67 | 3.5 | 112 | 4.29 | *** |
| Total | 100.0 | 290 | 100.0 | 496 | | | 100.0 | 451 | 100.0 | 3232 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Part fed + fed | 10.3 | 30.0 | 7.3 | 36.0 | 1.43 | NS | 4.2 | 19.0 | 3.9 | 127.0 | 1.07 | NS |
| Semi-gravid + gravid | 14.1 | 41.0 | 21.2 | 105.0 | 0.67 | * | 18.0 | 81.0 | 7.1 | 229.0 | 2.53 | *** |
n: count; RR: rate ratio; Sign.: significance in Fisher’s exact test; α: ***0.001, **0.01, *0.05, NS 1.
Comparison of the distribution of abdominal state between collection types depending on season
| | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |||||||||||
| Collections | | 85 | | 86 | | | | 11 | | 16 | | | | |
| Unfed | 75.5 | 219 | 77.8 | 351 | 0.97 | NS | 71.6 | 355 | 89.0 | 2876 | 0.80 | *** | 0.83 | *** |
| Part fed | 8.3 | 24 | 2.7 | 12 | 3.11 | *** | 5.4 | 27 | 0.6 | 19 | 9.26 | *** | 7.71 | *** |
| Fed | 2.1 | 6 | 1.6 | 7 | 1.33 | NS | 1.8 | 9 | 3.3 | 108 | 0.54 | NS | 0.61 | NS |
| Semigravid | 0.7 | 2 | 3.1 | 14 | 0.22 | * | 0.2 | 1 | 3.6 | 117 | 0.06 | *** | 0.11 | *** |
| Gravid | 13.4 | 39 | 14.9 | 67 | 0.91 | NS | 21.0 | 104 | 3.5 | 112 | 6.05 | *** | 3.74 | *** |
| Total | 100.0 | 290 | 100.0 | 451 | | | 100.0 | 496 | 100.0 | 3232 | | | | |
| Part fed + fed | 10.3 | 30.0 | 4.2 | 19.0 | 2.46 | *** | 7.3 | 36.0 | 3.9 | 127.0 | 1.85 | ** | 2.12 | *** |
| Semi-gravid + gravid | 14.1 | 41.0 | 18.0 | 81.0 | 0.79 | NS | 21.2 | 105.0 | 7.1 | 229.0 | 2.99 | *** | 2.21 | *** |
n: count; RR: rate ratio; Sign.: significance in Fisher’s exact test; α: ***0.001, **0.01, *0.05, NS 1.