| Literature DB >> 24949018 |
Elsa Nieves1, Luzmary Oraá1, Yorfer Rondón1, Mireya Sánchez1, Yetsenia Sánchez1, Masyelly Rojas1, Maritza Rondón1, Maria Rujano1, Nestor González1, Dalmiro Cazorla2.
Abstract
The exploitation of new wilderness areas with crops is increasing and traditional crop substitution has been modified by new more productive crops. The results show the anthropogenic disturbance effect on the sandflies population and Leishmania transmission in endemic areas of Venezuela. Three agroecosystems with variable degrees of ecological disturbance, forest (conserved), cacao (fragmented), and orangery (disturbed), were selected. Four methods to sandfly capture were used; the specimens were identified and infected with Leishmania. Diversity, population structure, ANOVA, Tukey test, and simple correlation analysis were carried out. Shannon traps were able to capture 94.7% of the total sandflies, while CDC light traps, Sticky traps, and direct suction just captured 2.2%, 1.2%, and 0.9%, respectively. The results showed the effect of ecological disturbance degree on the composition of sandflies and population structure, revealing a dominance level increased but decreased on the diversity and richness of sandflies species in the greatest ecological disturbance area in relation to areas with less organic disturbance. Environments more disturbed cause adaptability of certain species such as Lutzomyia gomezi and Lutzomyia walkeri. These changes on the composition of sandflies population and structure emerging species could cause increasing of leishmaniasis transmission.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24949018 PMCID: PMC3997880 DOI: 10.1155/2014/280629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Trop Med ISSN: 1687-9686
Figure 1Different degrees of ecological disturbance of the agroecosystems.
Ecoepidemiological characteristics and the degree of disturbance of the agroecosystems.
| Forest | Cocoa | Orangery | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental influence | |||
| Temperature | 24.8–27.9°C | 26.7–32°C | 24.8–26.9°C |
| Relative wetness | 65.5–82% | 52–75.7% | 75.2–83% |
| Water bodies | Yes | No | No |
| Type of vegetation | Arboreal | Shrubby and herbaceous | Shrubby |
| Anthropogenic influence | |||
| Animal presence | No | Yes | Yes |
| Crop presence | No | Yes | Yes |
| Human influence | Felling of trees | Garbage | Chemical contamination |
| Stored and irrigation water | No | Cistern | Irrigation |
|
| |||
| Ecological disturbance | Conserved | Fragmented | Disturbed |
|
| |||
| Level of disturbance | Low | Medium | High |
The species abundance in the agroecosystems studied.
| Species | Agroecosystems | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | Cocoa | Orangery | ||||||||||
|
| % | pi |
( |
| % | pi | ( |
| % | pi | ( | |
|
| 128 | 41.16 | 0.41 | 0.17 | 25 | 29.76 | 0.30 | 0.09 | 73 | 79.35 | 0.79 | 0.63 |
|
| 126 | 40.51 | 0.41 | 0.16 | 36 | 42.86 | 0.43 | 0.18 | 7 | 7.61 | 0.08 | 0.01 |
|
| 24 | 7.72 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 3 | 3.57 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 3 | 3.26 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
|
| 2 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 12 | 14.29 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 5 | 5.43 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
|
| 11 | 3.54 | 0.04 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 2 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 1 | 1.19 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 1 | 1.09 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
|
| 1 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — | 0 | — | — | — |
|
| 6 | 1.93 | 0.02 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — | 2 | 2.17 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
|
| 2 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — | 1 | 1.19 | 0.01 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — |
|
| 1 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | — | — | 0.00 | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 2 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.00 | — | — | 0.00 | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 3 | 0.96 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 1 | 1.19 | 0.01 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1.09 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
|
| 1 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4 | 4.76 | 0.05 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — |
|
| 2 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 1 | 1.19 | 0.01 | 0.00 | — | — | — | — |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Total | 311 | 100 | 1 | 0.34 | 84 | 100 | 1 | 0.30 | 92 | 100 | 1 | 0.64 |
Number of sandflies (N); abundance (pi); Simpson index (λ); anthropophilic species (∗); zoophilic species (∗∗).
Figure 2Cluster analysis of the capture in the agroecosystems.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the agroecosystems.
| Agroecosystems |
|
|---|---|
| Forest-cocoa | 0.041* |
| Forest-orangery | 0.073 |
| Cocoa-orangery | 0.001* |
*Significant differences in multiple comparison (alpha: 0.05).
Figure 3Dominance, diversity, and species richness in the three agroecosystems.
Figure 4Association between sandflies species and agroecosystems by the simple correspondence analysis.