| Literature DB >> 29343279 |
Gabriel O Dida1,2, Douglas N Anyona3, Paul O Abuom3, Daniel Akoko4, Samson O Adoka5, Ally-Said Matano6, Philip O Owuor7, Collins Ouma8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vector-borne diseases are increasingly becoming a major health problem among communities living along the major rivers of Africa. Although larger water bodies such as lakes and dams have been extensively researched, rivers and their tributaries have largely been ignored. This study sought to establish the spatial distribution of mosquito species during the dry season and further characterize their habitats along the Mara River and its tributaries.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles funestus; Anopheles gambiae; Culex; Kenya; Larval habitat; Mara River; Mosquito; Tanzania
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29343279 PMCID: PMC5772712 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-017-0385-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Fig. 1Map showing the study area (Kenya and Tanzania) and the geocoded location and distribution of the 39 sampling sites along the Mara River
Mosquito species, their numbers and percentage composition within the Mara river basin
| Mosquito species | No. mosquitoes | % composition |
|---|---|---|
|
| 1038 | 25.9 |
|
| 973 | 24.3 |
|
| 761 | 19.0 |
| 420 | 10.5 | |
| 321 | 8.0 | |
|
| 145 | 3.6 |
|
| 140 | 3.5 |
| Unidentified | 50 | 1.3 |
|
| 45 | 1.1 |
|
| 44 | 1.1 |
|
| 28 | 0.7 |
|
| 15 | 0.4 |
|
| 12 | 0.3 |
| 5 | 0.1 | |
|
| 2 | 0.05 |
|
| 1 | 0.02 |
|
| 1 | 0.02 |
| Total | 4001 | 100.0 |
Mean densities ± SE different larvae of mosquitoes (per habitat type) along the Mara River
|
| Drying streams | *Other habitat types | Open puddles | Vegetated pools | Rock pools | Animal hoofprints | Rivers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 34.6 ± 23.8 | 12.31 ± 6.4 | 29.1 ± 12.1 | 8.8 ± 1.3 | 4.3 ± 0.2 | 4.1 ± 5.1 | 0.0 |
|
| 27.4 ± 18.4 | 20.3 ± 5.0 | 26.2 ± 4.1 | 19.1 ± 3.6 | 0.0 | 2.1 ± 1.3 | 0.0 |
|
| 12.2 ± 7.4 | 3.8 ± 0.8 | 16.2 ± 1.4 | 5.1 ± 0.9 | 0.0 | 4.6 ± 1.5 | 0.0 |
|
| 20.3 ± 9.7 | 48.2 ± 8.7 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 11.0 ± 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 20.2 ± 7.6 | 27.2 ± 0.2 | 18.1 ± 8.0 | 22.1 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.0 |
| 0.9 ± 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.6 ± 1.5 | 0.0 | 0. 0 | 0.0 | |
|
| 2.1 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | <0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.0 | <0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.0 | <1.0 | 26.3 ± 11.4 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 ± 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 1.4 ± 0.4 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.4 ± 1.4 | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | < 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
The numbers of mosquitoes were higher in the drying streams followed by isolated swamp by the river. Except for only two An. coustani caught in the river environment, none of the mosquito larvae species was sampled from the main Mara River
Percent composition of mosquito larvae species collected at various habitat types based on vegetation characteristics
| Mosquito species | Short grass (%) | Tall grass (%) | Open sunlit (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 618 (39.1) | 2 (0.1) | 959 (60.8) | 1579 (100) |
| 65 (81.2) | 15 (18.8) | 0(0.0) | 80 (100) | |
|
| 299 (53.6) | 255 (45.7) | 4 (0.7) | 558 (100) |
|
| 40(62.5) | 22 (34.4) | 2 (3.13) | 64 (100) |
| 620 (41.5) | 37(2.5) | 837 (56.0) | 1494 (100) | |
|
| 2 (66.7) | 1(33.3) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (100) |
|
| 40 (76.9) | 0(0.0) | 12 (23.1) | 52 (100) |
|
| 8 (66.7) | 3(25.0) | 1 (8.3) | 12 (100) |
|
| 75 (57.5) | 0(0.0) | 55 (42.3) | 130 (100) |
|
| 15 (53.6) | 0(0.0) | 13 (46.4) | 28 (100) |
|
| 1(0.0) | 0(0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 0(0.0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) |
| Total | 1783 | 335 | 1884* | 4001 |
*Habitats with open sunlit produced the highest number of mosquitoes overall
Summary of the diversity indices as described by mosquito species richness along the Mara River, Kenya and Tanzania
| Indices | Terrestrial | River edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitats | Habitats | ||
| Species number | 1289 | 2712 | – |
| Species Richness | 9 | 12 | – |
| Shannon-Weinner Diversity Index | 1.1747 | 1.4380 | 0.342 |
| Shannon Evenness Index | 1.2640 | 2.1332 | 0.002 |
Fig. 2Species richness estimation in all sites along the Mara River
Fig. 3Distribtion of the four main disease-transmitting vectors along the Mara River and its tributaries
Fig. 4Map of the distribution of the three main malaria vectors along the Mara River. The red dots show the spatial distribution of An. arabiensis mosquitoes, the blue dots show the spatial distribution of An. gambiae s.s. mosquitoes, and the green dots show the spatial distribution of mosquitoes belonging to the An. funestus group
Average physicochemical parameters at different mosquito larvae habitats along Mara River basin
| Habitats (No. of sites) | DO (mg/L) | pH | Alkalinity (mg/L) | Hardness (mg/L) | Turbidity (NTU) | Conductivity (μS/cm) | Temperature (°C) | Salinity (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dam | 4.7 ± 1.8 | 8.1 ± 0.4 | 100 ± 62.4 | 87.7 ± 56.2 | 96.9 ± 142.0 | 269.8 ± 213.8 | 24.4 ± 1.9 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Stream | 5.3 ± 1.6 | 8.1 ± 0.6 | 126.2 ± 26.5 | 102.4 ± 68.9 | 124.3 ± 152.6 | 290 ± 186.5 | 22.5 ± 2.1 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Swamp | 2.4 ± 2.7 | 7.0 ± 1.3 | 244.5 ± 274.6 | 58.5 ± 46.7 | 142.2 ± 108.5 | 174.3 ± 59.2 | 23.2 ± 4.9 | <0.1 |
| Drainage | 4.3 ± 3.8 | 7.3 ± 0.5 | 400 ± 282.8 | 372 ± 393.2 | 144.8 ± 84.3 | 168.5 ± 13.4 | 24.2 ± 0.7 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Rock pool | 6.0 ± 0.7 | 7.1 ± 0.8 | 153 ± 60.8 | 127 ± 69.3 | 542.6 ± 2.3* | 368.0 ± 125.9* | 26.2 ± 3.4 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Puddles | 5.6 ± 0.8 | 8.2 ± 0.5 | 104 ± 103.0 | 188 ± 247.7 | 95.2 ± 131.9 | 168.8 ± 87.3 | 25.2 ± 2.3 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Spring | 4.0 ± 0.3 | 8.3 ± 0.6 | 124 ± 113.2 | 183 ± 148.4 | 134.5 ± 121.7 | 155.7 ± 88.4 | 26.3 ± 2.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| River | 6.4 ± 0.7 | 7.3 ± 0.4 | 100 ± 199.2 | 178 ± 228.8 | 135.2 ± 142.4 | 144.5 ± 97.6 | 19.7 ± 2.3 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
*There were highly elevated levels of turbidity and conductivity in rock pools, probably due to accumulation of dissolved particles
GLMM relating mosquito larval density to physico-chemical parameters and distance along the Mara River
| Variable | Estimate | SE | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 3.27 | 0.65 | 5.05 | <0.001 |
| Conductivity | 0.02 | 0.05 | 3.68 | <0.000 |
| Distance | 0.01 | 0.03 | 4.57 | <0.001 |
| DO | 0.31 | 0.04 | 7.37 | <0.001 |
| Temperature | 0.08 | 0.02 | 7.65 | <0.001 |
| Turbidity | −0.03 | 0.07 | −5.25 | <0.001 |