| Literature DB >> 24888886 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The future distribution of malaria in Africa is likely to be much more dependent on environmental conditions than the current distribution due to the effectiveness of indoor and therapeutic anti-malarial interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), indoor residual spraying for mosquitoes (IRS), artemisinin-combination therapy (ACT), and intermittent presumptive treatment (IPT). Future malaria epidemiology is therefore expected to be increasingly dominated by Anopheles arabiensis, which is the most abundant exophagic mosquito competent to transmit Plasmodium falciparum and exhibits a wide geographic range.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24888886 PMCID: PMC4066281 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Boundary estimation versus discrimative methods for ecological niche modelling. Simulated data illustrates why modelling a species’potential distribution is a problem for boundary estimation not classification. A. The left most panel represents the habitat in two environmental dimensions (e.g., precipitation and temperature) in locations at which a species is known to occur. The heavy curve depicts the true niche of the species. The dashed line is the convex hull of the sample, a naive estimate of the species niche. The black cross represents the center of the species niche, which is the most probable set of environmental conditions at which the species occurs. B. The center panel represents samples of environmental conditions at locations taken at random from the background distribution of environments. The green cross indicates the mean environment. The arrow is a vector of “niche displacement”. C. The right most panel depicts both occurrence and background data. The dashed line is the estimated optimal classification boundary between occurrence and background points. The blue-green color gradient depicts the conditional probability that a given instance is an occurrence points (blue: P (occurrence) = 1; gray: P (occurrence) = 0.5; green: P (occurrence) = 0). Inset plots illustrate the region of environmental space in which each fit model makes Type I (α) or Type II (β) errors.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of . Distribution of sampling points and a balanced random sample of background points.
Environmental features used to model the potential distribution of in Africa
| | | |
| Average monthly minimum temperature | °C | |
| Average monthly maximum temperature | °C | |
| Average monthly precipitation | °C | |
| | | |
| (BIO1) Annual mean temperature | °C | |
| (BIO2) Mean diurnal temperature range | °C | |
| (BIO3) Isothermality | no units | |
| (BIO4) Temperature seasonality | °C | |
| (BIO5) Maximum temperature of warmest month | °C | |
| (BIO6) Minimum temperature of coldest month | °C | |
| (BIO7) Temperature annual range | °C | |
| (BIO8) Mean temperature of wettest quarter | °C | |
| (BIO9) Mean temperature of driest quarter | °C | |
| (BIO10) Mean temperature of warmest quarter | °C | |
| (BIO11) Mean temperature of coldest quarter | °C | |
| (BIO12) Annual precipitation | mm | |
| (BIO13) Precipitation of wettest month | mm | |
| (BIO14) Precipitation of driest month | mm | |
| (BIO15) Precipitation seasonality | mm | |
| (BIO16) Precipitation of wettest quarter | mm | |
| (BIO17) Precipitation of driest quarter | mm | |
| (BIO18) Precipitation of warmest quarter | mm | |
| (BIO19) Precipitation of coldest quarter | mm | |
| | | |
| Monthly temperature range | °C | |
| log-transforms | log mm | |
| ecdf-transforms | no units |
Figure 3is found across a broad range of environments. A. Scree plot of the first ten principal components shows that a majority of the environmental variation (≈55%) may be summarized by the first two principal components. B. Points where Anopheles arabiensis has been collected represented in the space of the first two principal components of the environmental features shows that this species occupies a very large environmental range.
Figure 4Potential distribution of under contemporary conditions and three global climate change scenarios. A. Modelled potential distribution of Anopheles arabiensis habitat in Africa given the current global climate. B. Future potential distribution of Anopheles arabiensis in Africa under IPCC Scenario A1B. C. Future potential distribution of Anopheles arabiensis in Africa under IPCC Scenario A2A. D. Future potential distribution of Anopheles arabiensis in Africa under IPCC Scenario B2A.
Figure 5Summary of the difference in current and projected total habitable area of . Current distribution of Anopheles arabiensis habitat in Africa compared with the total land area of Africa and potential distribution under three climate change scenarios. Overplotted quantities are percent habitat loss from baseline.
Figure 6Differences between the current and projected distribution of . A. Losses and gains of Anopheles arabiensis habitat in Africa under future climate scenario A1B compared with the current distribution. B. Losses and gains of Anopheles arabiensis habitat in Africa under future climate scenario A2A compared with the current distribution. C. Losses and gains of Anopheles arabiensis habitat in Africa under future climate scenario B2A compared with the current distribution.
Figure 7Projected distribution of is robust to variations in climate change scenario. A. Number of scenarios in which Anopheles arabiensis habitat is predicted to be lost or gained (grey: no scenario predicts habitat; orange: habitat predicted under one climate change scenario; light green: habitat predicted under two climate change scenarios; green: habitat predicted under all three climate change scenarios). B. Universal agreement among three climate change scenarios that An. arabiensis habitat will be gained. C. Universal agreement among three climate change scenarios that An. arabiensis habitat will be lost.