Climate variability and Aedes vector indices in the southern Philippines: An empirical analysis

Abstract

Background Vector surveillance is an essential public health tool to aid in the prediction and prevention of mosquito borne diseases. This study compared spatial and temporal trends of vector surveillance indices for Aedes vectors in the southern Philippines, and assessed potential links between vector indices and climate factors. Methods We analysed routinely collected larval and pupal surveillance data from residential areas of 14 cities and 51 municipalities during 2013–2018 (House, Container, Breteau and Pupal Indices), and used linear regression to explore potential relationships between vector indices and climate variables (minimum temperature, maximum temperature and precipitation). Results We found substantial spatial and temporal variation in monthly Aedes vector indices between cities during the study period, and no seasonal trend apparent. The House (HI), Container (CI) and Breteau (BI) Indices remained at comparable levels across most surveys (mean HI = 15, mean CI = 16, mean BI = 24), while the Pupal Productivity Index (PPI) was relatively lower in most months (usually below 5) except for two main peak periods (mean = 49 overall). A small proportion of locations recorded high values across all entomological indices in multiple surveys. Each of the vector indices were significantly correlated with one or more climate variables when matched to data from the same month or the previous 1 or 2 months, although the effect sizes were small. Significant associations were identified between minimum temperature and HI, CI and BI in the same month (R2 = 0.038, p = 0.007; R2 = 0.029, p = 0.018; and R2 = 0.034, p = 0.011, respectively), maximum temperature and PPI with a 2-month lag (R2 = 0.031, p = 0.032), and precipitation and HI in the same month (R2 = 0.023, p = 0.04). Conclusions Our findings indicated that larval and pupal surveillance indices were highly variable, were regularly above the threshold for triggering vector control responses, and that vector indices based on household surveys were weakly yet significantly correlated with city-level climate variables. We suggest that more detailed spatial and temporal analyses of entomological, climate, socio-environmental and Aedes-borne disease incidence data are necessary to ascertain the most effective use of entomological indices in guiding vector control responses, and reduction of human disease risk.

The relative importance of key meteorological factors affecting numbers of mosquito vectors of dengue fever

“…The life cycle of mosquitoes is greatly influenced by meteorological conditions, and the mechanism of its influence has always been a subject of curiosity [3][4][5][6][7][37][38][39][40][41]. Our sensitivity analysis of these effects found that the aftermath duration of the impact of changing climate in different seasons on mosquito numbers was different.…”

“…The warm and humid climate of several coastal provinces in southern China is particularly suitable for the breeding of Aedes albopictus, the main vector of dengue fever, which inevitably increases the risk of dengue outbreaks [1,2]. Therefore, the characterization and prediction of the population dynamics of A. albopictus, especially the analysis of the impact of key climate factors on mosquito numbers (based on proxy values derived from two entomological indices), are of practical significance for the prevention and early warning of dengue outbreaks [3][4][5].…”

Climate change, environmental extremes, and human health in Australia: challenges, adaptation strategies, and policy gaps

“…Climate change has and will continue to cause more infectious disease transmission via affecting pathogen development, increasing vector growth rate, shortening the extrinsic incubation period, and changing human behaviour, 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 which leads to both spatial and temporal expansion of infectious disease cases. Many studies suggest that climate change with increased temperatures is causing more food-, water- and vector-borne disease cases in Australia.…”