| Literature DB >> 35682283 |
Emmanuel Hakizimana1,2, Chantal Marie Ingabire3, Alexis Rulisa4, Fredrick Kateera5, Bart van den Borne6, Claude Mambo Muvunyi7, Michele van Vugt8, Leon Mutesa9, Gebbiena M Bron10, Willem Takken2, Constantianus J M Koenraadt2.
Abstract
Larval source management (LSM) programs for control of malaria vectors are often vertically organized, while there is much potential for involving local communities in program implementation. To address this, we evaluated the entomological impact of community-based application of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti) in a rice irrigation scheme in Ruhuha, Rwanda. A non-randomized trial with control compared a Bti implementation program that was supervised by the project team (ES) with a program that was led and carried out by local rice farming communities (CB). One other area served as a control to assess mosquito populations without Bti application. Entomological surveys were carried out every two weeks and assessed the presence and abundance of the larval, pupal, and adult stages of Anopheles mosquitoes. In ES, the per round reduction in Anopheles larval habitats was estimated at 49%. This reduction was less in CB (28%) and control (22%) although the per round reduction in CB was still significantly higher than in control. Pupal production was almost completely prevented from round 5 (out of 10) onwards in both CB (average habitat occupancy 0.43%) and ES intervention arms (average habitat occupancy 0.27%), whereas pupal occupancy rates were on average 12.8% from round 5 onwards in the control. Emergence of adult mosquitoes from rice fields was thus prevented although this was not directly noticeable in adult An. gambiae populations in houses nearby the rice fields. Together with our earlier work on the willingness to financially contribute to the LSM program and the high perceived safety and acceptance of the Bti product, the current study demonstrates that, in an environment with limited resources, communities could become more engaged in LSM program implementation and contribute directly to malaria vector control in their environment.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis; community engagement; larval source management; vector control
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682283 PMCID: PMC9180564 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116699
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1(A) Location of the experimental sites in Ruhuha, southeast Rwanda. Nyaburiba: rice field control, Gatare: rice field-1 for community-based application of Bti (CB1), Kizanye: rice field-2 for community-based application of Bti (CB2), Kibaza: rice field-1 for expert supervised application of Bti (ES1), Nyagafunzo: crop land-2 for expert supervised application of Bti (ES2). Blue dots represent the 19 water hill dams at which expert-supervised application of Bti (ES3) was also carried out. (B) Training of community representatives for spraying of Bti. (C) Spraying of Bti using knapsack sprayers in the irrigated rice fields.
Table with main characteristics of the experimental sites, organizational structures of Bti application and entomology monitoring of larval and adult stages of mosquitoes in the study site. n.a., not applicable; CMAT, Community Malaria Action Team; ET, entomology technician.
| Control | Expert-Supervised | Community-Based | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Name of site (type of crop, size) | Nyaburiba | ES1—Kibaza (rice, 27 ha) | CB1—Gatare (rice, 25 ha) |
| Total size | 33 ha | 35.3 ha | 33 ha |
|
| |||
| Organization of | n.a. | 4 teams of 3 sprayers | 4 teams of 3 sprayers |
| Logistic management | n.a. | Project research team | 2 cooperatives of rice farmers |
| Reporting of | n.a. | Daily to research team | Weekly to research team |
|
| |||
| Larval stages | 3 members of CMATs | 6 members of CMATs | 6 members of CMATs |
| Adult mosquitoes | 2 members of CMATs | 2 members of CMATs | 2 members of CMATs |
Figure 2Example of sampling sites for mosquito larval stages in the Kibaza rice field-1 (ES1), Ruhuha, Rwanda.
Overview of the numbers of sampling points per transect per treatment.
| Treatment | Location Name | Habitat Type | Transect | # Sampling Sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community-based 1 | Gatare | Rice paddy | A | 21 |
| B | 22 | |||
| C | 29 | |||
| Total | 72 | |||
| Community-based 2 | Kizanye | Rice paddy | A | 23 |
| B | 23 | |||
| C | 23 | |||
| Total | 69 | |||
| Expert-supervised 1 | Kibaza | Rice paddy | A | 51 |
| B | 49 | |||
| C | 48 | |||
| Total | 148 | |||
| Expert-supervised 2 | Nyagafunzo | Water drains | A | 5 |
| B | 5 | |||
| C | 5 | |||
| Total | 15 | |||
| Expert-supervised 3 | Hill dams | Water dams | 19 | |
| Total | 19 | |||
| Control | Nyaburiba | Rice paddy | A | 41 |
| B | 41 | |||
| C | 41 | |||
| Total | 123 |
Figure 3Number of sites with and without Anopheles larvae per survey round in the control arm (panel (A)), number of Anopheles larvae per dip per survey round in the control arm (panel (B)), and number of sites with pupae per survey round in the control arm (panel (C)). Similarly, in panels (D–I), the same outcome parameters are shown for the CB arm and ES arm, respectively. The dashed horizontal lines represent the maximum number of sampling sites that were selected per intervention arm (see Table 1).
Parameter estimates for the GLMM of occupancy rates of habitats with Anopheles larvae with sampling site included as random variable.
| Variable (Control = Reference) | Parameter Estimate | Std. Error | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.882 | 0.881 | 0.317 |
| Community-based | −0.163 | 1.083 | 0.880 |
| Expert supervised | −0.412 | 1.035 | 0.690 |
| Round | −0.248 | 0.025 | <0.001 |
| Round * Community-based | −0.074 | 0.037 | 0.045 |
| Round * Expert-supervised | −0.424 | 0.050 | <0.001 |
Figure 4Predicted habitat occupancy rates for Anopheles larvae over the survey rounds (panel (A)). Predicted numbers of adult An. gambiae per house per survey round (panel (B)).
Figure 5Number of houses with adult An. gambiae per survey round in the control arm (panel (A)) and number of adult An. gambiae per house per survey round in the control arm (panel (D)). Similarly, in panels (B,C,E,F), the same outcome parameters are shown for the CB arm and ES arm, respectively.
Parameter estimates for the GLMM of adult An. gambiae per house with house included as random variable.
| Variable (Control = Reference) | Parameter Estimate | Std. Error | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 4.383 | 0.291 | <0.001 |
| Community-based | −1.852 | 0.408 | <0.001 |
| Expert-supervised | −1.106 | 0.415 | 0.008 |
| Round | −0.618 | 0.038 | <0.001 |
| Round * Community-based | 0.321 | 0.049 | <0.001 |
| Round * Expert-supervised | −0.042 | 0.057 | 0.468 |