Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2010 Feb 9;7(2):e1000209. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000209

Developing Global Maps of the Dominant Anopheles Vectors of Human Malaria

Simon I Hay 1,2,*, Marianne E Sinka 1, Robi M Okara 2, Caroline W Kabaria 2, Philip M Mbithi 2, Carolynn C Tago 2, David Benz 1, Peter W Gething 1, Rosalind E Howes 1, Anand P Patil 1, William H Temperley 1, Michael J Bangs 3, Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap 4, Iqbal R F Elyazar 5, Ralph E Harbach 6, Janet Hemingway 7, Sylvie Manguin 8, Charles M Mbogo 9, Yasmin Rubio-Palis 10, H Charles J Godfray 1
PMCID: PMC2817710  PMID: 20161718

Abstract

Simon Hay and colleagues describe how the Malaria Atlas Project has collated anopheline occurrence data to map the geographic distributions of the dominant mosquito vectors of human malaria.

Introduction

Despite advances in mapping the geographical distribution and intensity of malaria transmission [1],[2], the ability to provide strategic, evidence-based advice for malaria control programmes remains constrained by the lack of range maps of the dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria. This is because appropriate vector control depends on knowing both the distribution and epidemiological significance of Anopheles vectors [3]. Substantial investments by major donors in the distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying campaigns [4] are, therefore, not always fully informed by the basic biology of local anophelines.

Recent attempts to delineate Anopheles distributions have been conducted in Africa [5][11], the Americas [12][16], Europe [17], Central and South East Asia [18][22], and at the global scale [23][26]. The mapping techniques used in these various studies range from those based on expert opinion and simple interpolations to those employing more sophisticated statistical methods. Consequently, these studies are difficult to compare and impossible to synthesize globally. In addition, whereas in some regions Anopheles species distributions and their contribution to human malaria transmission are well known, uncertainty arises when suites of vectors contribute to local transmission, when the margins of the species ranges are poorly defined, and/or when there is simply a lack of any, or reliably identified, distribution records. Furthermore, as many regions attempt to maintain their malaria-free status against imported malaria [27] and others consider their prospects of malaria elimination [28],[29], contemporary maps of anophelines that are competent vectors for malaria are important in assessing local receptivity to reintroduction [30].

To help address these needs, the Malaria Atlas Project (MAP, http://www.map.ox.ac.uk) [31] has extended its activities to collate anopheline occurrence data to map the contemporary geographic distributions of the dominant mosquito vectors of human malaria. The plans for, and progress of, this initiative are described here.

Defining the Dominant Anopheles Vectors of Human Malaria

There are 462 formally named Anopheles species, with a further 50 provisionally designated and awaiting description [32][34]. Of these, approximately 70 have been shown to be competent vectors of human malaria [35] and from this set, 52 candidate dominant vector species (DVS) were initially chosen for inclusion in the MAP vector distribution mapping project. These DVS are species (or species complexes) that transmit the majority of human malaria parasites in an area by virtue of their abundance, their propensity for feeding on humans, their mean adult longevity (only old individuals incubate the parasite long enough to transmit the disease), or any combination of these and other factors that increase overall vectorial capacity [36]. The DVS were the inclusive set of those species identified as “main” [37],[38], “dominant” [24], or “principal” [23],[25] in major reviews of Anopheles distribution and biology. The list was then further refined by anopheline experts from the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, who co-author this article, to exclude 11 species that were not considered important vectors either because few recent data had implicated them in transmission or because they acted as vectors in only restricted geographical areas (Text S1). Following the convention of the major reviews in this area [23][25],[37],[38], the DVS of the Anopheles (Cellia) gambiae complex are listed separately. We hope also to map at species level three other complexes, where examination of the primary literature has indicated sufficient species-specific data (the An. (Nyssorhynchus) albitarsis, An. (Cellia) culicifacies, and An. (Cellia) dirus complexes). Further details are provided in the legend of the maps of each complex in Text S3 (for the An. (Nyssorhynchus) albitarsis complex) and Text S5 (for the An. (Cellia) culicifacies and An. (Cellia) dirus complexes).

Comprehensive Literature Searches

An exhaustive and systematic search of formal and informal literature was conducted, mirroring the approaches developed by the MAP in building a global database of malaria parasite prevalence [39]. Only information collected after 31 December 1984 was searched. This criterion ensured that the data collected were representative of the contemporary distribution of the DVS and that the DVS occurrence records included only data collected using modern taxonomic species concepts [32],[33]. Following the introduction of cytological and then molecular methods to mosquito systematics, the taxonomy of the Anopheles changed radically, making many earlier species determinations potentially unreliable [32],[33],[40][43]. This date restriction also served to focus finite literature retrieval and abstracting resources on newer references, that are easier to retrieve from libraries, have sites that are less problematic to geo-position, and have authors that can often still be contacted with queries.

Records of the presence or absence of a DVS at a particular site and on a particular date were entered into the database so that information collected at different times from a locality was documented. Because abundance data have not been reported using methods that can be readily standardized across entomological surveys, only presence and absence data were used to generate the maps. Although the geographic distribution of the DVS in malaria-endemic countries is the first concern, data from any location was recorded because, as previously noted, information on DVS distribution is of major importance in those areas seeking to maintain their malaria-free status. Moreover, when modelling the fundamental niche of a species [44] using climate-envelope approaches [45], the aim is to be inclusive geographically, in an attempt to fully represent the environmental limits encompassed by its range.

Once a relevant literature source was identified, information was extracted using a list of data fields specified by a detailed pro forma (Text S2). Precise geo-positioning was conducted using established methods [39], so that any uncertainty associated with the positioning could be estimated [46][49]. Our strategy has been to first target the formally published literature and to use this base to direct further searches for informal (“grey”) literature sources and unpublished information held by relevant individuals and organisations. The results of this exercise were a total of 41,518 records with 22,249 spatially unique observations for all 41 DVS. These records are shown in full in a series of maps in Text S3, Text S4, and Text S5 for the American, Europe Africa, and Middle East and Asia Pacific region species, respectively. Short legends are included with each map indicating areas for which occurrence records are not well documented in the formal literature by comparison with digitised expert opinion distributions for each species. Informal searches are to be focussed on these areas of poor coverage and, where not prohibited by taxonomic identification issues, the inclusion date will be relaxed to the 31 December 1974. Ultimately, all these data will be made available in the public domain in accordance with the open access data sharing principles of the MAP [31].

Collaborative Online Databases

Many initiatives are being developed to provide information on the geographical distribution of disease vectors, including the Anopheles (Table 1; for example surveys of the geographical distribution of different forms of insecticide resistance [50][52]). These initiatives will be a significant help in data acquisition. Duplication of search effort will be minimized by ensuring compatibility between different data abstraction ontologies (e.g., [53] and Text S2), so that where possible, data exchange can be automated. Where this cannot be achieved, data will be incorporated manually into the MAP archives with its provenance clearly recorded.

Table 1. Summary of the online resources for Anopheles.

Site URL Description
Anobase http://www.anobase.org Contains genomic/biological information for An. gambiae s.l.
Disease Vector Database http://www.diseasevectors.org Species occurrence data for 111 vectors including many Anopheles [10].
Lifemapper http://www.lifemapper.org Lifemapper correlates online geospatial species (plant, animal, and insect) occurrence data with a number of environmental variables to create distribution maps and total range predictions.
Malvecasia http://www.itg.be/malvecasia A multi-institutional European Union–funded project mapping insecticide resistance of An. dirus, An. minimus, An. epiroticus, and An. vagus in South-east Asia [52].
MARA http://www.mara.org.za The Mapping Malaria Risk in Africa site provides a spreadsheet documenting species occurrence data for An. gambiae s.l. [6].
MosquitoMap http://www.mosquitomap.org Interactive map showing global sampling points of mosquitoes from a number of genera, incorporating sampling details and full taxonomic descriptions [14].
VectorBase http://www.vectorbase.org Contains sequence and molecular vector-specific information for An. gambiae s.l.
WRBU http://www.wrbu.org The Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit has identification resources, images, and limited distribution maps for a range of medically important arthropods.

New Species Mapping Techniques

Recent years have seen the development of a number of new techniques to predict species ranges [54][59], of which the most promising include methods based on boosted regression trees [60],[61], generalised additive models [62], and maximum entropy approaches [63]. In addition, Bayesian statistical approaches [64][66], which have been widely used in mapping malaria prevalence [67][72], have recently begun to be applied to mapping the relative frequency of Anopheles species [73]. Bayesian models are able to integrate information from disparate sources and allow the comprehensive quantification of prediction uncertainty, something that is often overlooked in species mapping exercises [74].

An important input into the iterative mapping process is expert advice from entomologists and public health workers with extensive experience of DVS in the field. To facilitate this input, the DVS have been split into three biogeographical regions: the Americas (nine species); Africa, Europe, and the Middle East (13 species); and the Asia-Pacific region (19 species) (Text S1). These experts have helped refine the expert opinion distributions digitised from the literature for the 41 DVS. These are presented alongside the species occurrence summaries in Text S3, Text S4, and Text S5.

New Earth Observing Satellite Data

The statistical techniques we shall employ in future mapping efforts will model species occurrence as a function of environmental variables. We can then predict species distributions as a function of environmental conditions that can be obtained from Earth-observing satellite imagery [75]. During model formulation and validation we shall use coarse spatial resolution (∼8×8 km) multitemporal remotely sensed imagery [76] to reduce computational demand. Once the particular mapping technique is chosen, we will move to more contemporary Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite imagery, available globally at ∼1×1 km spatial resolution [77], to improve the spatial resolution of the predictions. Adapting temporal Fourier analyses techniques, which ordinate seasonal environmental data [78],[79], to cope with the irregular compositing periods of MODIS data, has been completed and the data has already been made available in the public domain [77].

New Bionomics Review

The usefulness of the species range maps when available online [80], can be improved by combining them with summaries of the species-specific life history characteristics or “bionomics” of the DVS. Anopheline vector bionomics are critical in defining the appropriate (and inappropriate) modes of control at the national and local level [81][83]. For example, indoor residual spraying of houses for the control of a vector that is predominantly an outdoor resting species and prefers biting animals (e.g., An. (Cellia) arabiensis) is unlikely to be an optimal control strategy [84]. Conversely, if the vector feeds predominantly indoors and at night (e.g., An. (Cellia) gambiae), insecticide-treated nets are likely to be a very appropriate intervention [85],[86]. Information on characteristics of specific larval habitats and range will also be informative. Public health and education measures aimed at larval reduction may be feasible across large parts of the Middle East and Asia [87], where An. (Cellia) stephensi is the major DVS. This species readily breeds in urban areas, often using human-made water containers as its preferred larval habitat. Conversely, environmental management techniques such as installing tidal gates or constructing drainage systems are likely to be more effective as a permanent means of reducing or eliminating suitable coastal habitats of members of the An. (Cellia) sundaicus complex across substantial areas of South East Asia [88].

A systematic review of life-history characteristics pertinent to control is also timely as previous summaries become out of date [3],[89][97]. For example, as the taxonomy of the genus is better understood, it is evident that previous accounts which do not separate the different members of species complexes may omit or confuse critical biological information relevant for pest management. Examples of this occur in the An. sundaicus [98] and An. (Cellia) minimus complexes [99]. In addition, it would be desirable to incorporate the latest information on the phylogeny of the Anopheles [33], so that modern comparative methods [100] can be used to infer species characteristics from evolutionary relationships when no observations are available. This assembled information will be particularly useful for extending models of malaria transmission beyond An. gambiae, the species that has been the subject of most [101][103], but not all [104], attention. This will become increasingly important as operational and research communities alike continue to model the impact of vector control on malaria transmission [30].

Since abundance cannot be modelled with these opportunistic data assemblies, the bionomics review will also facilitate a ranking of the importance in malaria transmission of the different DVS in each region. This ranking will enable multiple species maps to be overlaid to obtain a more accurate picture of the overall epidemiological significance of the local DVS community and thus provide a better understanding of the complexity of transmission in an area. It is clear that subregional ecological diversity, coupled with the behavioural plasticity of many DVS, will require that any maps, and associated bionomics information provided, be interpreted and acted on cautiously with local expert knowledge.

Conclusions

The completed DVS databases and predictive maps will be made available online once generated, alongside the wider portfolio of MAP products, including spatial limits and endemicity maps for the human malaria parasites [1],[2]. This juxtaposition of information should represent an important cartographic resource for those engaged in malaria control and where feasible, its elimination. The success and long-term sustainability of this DVS mapping initiative depends critically on its continued support, development, and refinement in the malaria vector control and research communities. We hope that the information on the aims and objectives provided here, and the commitment to providing data in an open access venue, will help ensure that support.

Supporting Information

Text S1

Defining the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria.

(0.14 MB DOC)

Text S2

Pro forma for the abstraction of occurrence data for the dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria.

(0.08 MB DOC)

Text S3

Maps of expert opinion distribution and species occurrence records for the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria in the Americas.

(1.82 MB PDF)

Text S4

Maps of expert opinion distribution and species occurrence records for the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.

(3.02 MB PDF)

Text S5

Maps of expert opinion distribution and species occurrence records for the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria in the Asia-Pacific region.

(4.11 MB PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Anja Bibby, Simon Brooker, and Bob Snow for comments on the manuscript. The following persons provided valuable unpublished information for the malaria vectors in the Americas: Marylin Aparicio (Bolivia), Mauricio Casas (Mexico), Roberto Fernández (Peru), Ranulfo González (Colombia), and Ricardo Lourenço-de-Oliveira (Brazil). The authors acknowledge the support of the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) and this paper is published with the permission of the director of KEMRI.

Abbreviations

DVS

dominant vector species

MAP

Malaria Atlas Project

MODIS

Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer

Footnotes

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

SIH is funded by a Senior Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (#079091) which also supports PWG, APP, and WHT. MES, CWK, PMM, CCT, and REH are funded by a Wellcome Trust project grant (#083534) to SIH. RMO is funded by a Wellcome Trust Masters Training Fellowship (#083124). This work forms part of the output of the Malaria Atlas Project (MAP, http://www.map.ox.ac.uk), principally funded by the Wellcome Trust, U.K. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

References

  • 1.Guerra CA, Gikandi PW, Tatem AJ, Noor AM, Smith DL, et al. The limits and intensity of Plasmodium falciparum transmission: implications for malaria control and elimination worldwide. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e38. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hay SI, Guerra CA, Gething PW, Patil AP, Tatem AJ, et al. A world malaria map: Plasmodium falciparum endemicity in 2007. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e48. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 1984. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part I. The WHO African region and the southern WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Section I: malaria vectors of the Afrotropical region - general information. Section II: an overview of malaria control problems and the recent malaria situation. (VBC/84.6-MAP/84.3).109 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kelly-Hope L, Ranson H, Hemingway J. Lessons from the past: managing insecticide resistance in malaria control and eradication programmes. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:387–389. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70045-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Coetzee M. Distribution of the African malaria vectors of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;70:103–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Coetzee M, Craig M, le Sueur D. Distribution of African malaria mosquitoes belonging to the Anopheles gambiae complex. Parasitol Today. 2000;16:74–77. doi: 10.1016/s0169-4758(99)01563-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Levine RS, Townsend Peterson A, Benedict MQ. Geographic and ecologic distributions of the Anopheles gambiae complex predicted using a genetic algorithm. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;70:105–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lindsay SW, Parson L, Thomas CJ. Mapping the ranges and relative abundance of the two principal African malaria vectors, Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto and An. arabiensis, using climate data. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998;265:847–854. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rogers DJ, Randolph SE, Snow RW, Hay SI. Satellite imagery in the study and forecast of malaria. Nature. 2002;415:710–715. doi: 10.1038/415710a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moffett A, Shackelford N, Sarkar S. Malaria in Africa: vector species' niche models and relative risk maps. PLoS One. 2007;2:e824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Moffett A, Strutz S, Guda N, Gonzalez C, Ferro MC, et al. A global public database of disease vector and reservoir distributions. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3:e378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rubio-Palis Y, Zimmerman RH. Ecoregional classification of malaria vectors in the neotropics. J Med Entomol. 1997;34:499–510. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/34.5.499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Levine RS, Peterson AT, Benedict MQ. Distribution of members of Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say s.l. (Diptera: Culicidae) and implications for their roles in malaria transmission in the United States. J Med Entomol. 2004;41:607–613. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-41.4.607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Foley DH, Weitzman AL, Miller SE, Faran ME, Rueda LM, et al. The value of georeferenced collection records for predicting patterns of mosquito species richness and endemism in the Neotropics. Ecol Entomol. 2008;33:12–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Osborn FR, Rubio-Palis Y, Herrera M, Figuera A, Moreno JE. Caracterización ecoregional de los vectores de malaria en Venezuela. Boletín de Malariología Y Salud Ambiental. 2004;44:77–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Loaiza JR, Bermingham E, Scott ME, Rovira JR, Conn JE. Species composition and distribution of adult Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae) in Panama. J Med Entomol. 2008;45:841–851. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[841:scadoa]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kuhn KG, Campbell-Lendrum DH, Davies CR. A continental risk map for malaria mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) vectors in Europe. J Med Entomol. 2002;39:621–630. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-39.4.621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Manguin S, Garros C, Dusfour I, Harbach RE, Coosemans M. Bionomics, taxonomy, and distribution of the major malaria vector taxa of Anopheles subgenus Cellia in Southeast Asia: an updated review. Infect Genet Evol. 2008;8:489–503. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2007.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sweeney AW, Beebe NW, Cooper RD, Bauer JT, Peterson AT. Environmental factors associated with distribution and range limits of malaria vector Anopheles farauti in Australia. J Med Entomol. 2006;43:1068–1075. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2006)43[1068:efawda]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Obsomer V, Defourny P, Coosemans M. The Anopheles dirus complex: spatial distribution and environmental drivers. Malar J. 2007;6:26. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-6-26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Foley DH, Rueda LM, Peterson AT, Wilkerson RC. Potential distribution of two species in the medically important Anopheles minimus Complex (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2008;45:852–860. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[852:pdotsi]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Garros C, Van Nguyen C, Trung HD, Van Bortel W, Coosemans M, et al. Distribution of Anopheles in Vietnam, with particular attention to malaria vectors of the Anopheles minimus complex. Malar J. 2008;7:11. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-7-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.White GB. Geneva: World Health Organization, Division of Vector Biology and Control; 1989. Malaria. Geographical distribution of arthropod-borne diseases and their principal vectors WHO/VBC/89967. pp. 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kiszewski A, Mellinger A, Spielman A, Malaney P, Sachs SE, et al. A global index representing the stability of malaria transmission. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;70:486–498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mouchet J, Carnevale P, Coosemans M, Julvez J, Manguin S, et al. Montrouge, France: John Libbey Eurotext ; 2004. Biodiversité du paludisme dans le monde.428 [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Manguin S, Carnevale P, Mouchet J, Coosemans M, Julvez J, et al. Montrouge, France: John Libbey Eurotext ; 2008. Biodiversity of malaria in the world.464 [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tatem AJ, Rogers DJ, Hay SI. Estimating the malaria risk of African mosquito movement by air travel. Malar J. 2006;5:57. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-5-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Feachem R, Sabot O. A new global malaria eradication strategy. Lancet. 2008;10:1633–1635. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60424-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wernsdorfer W, Hay SI, Shanks GD. Learning from history. Shrinking the Malaria Map: a Prospectus on Malaria Elimination. 2009:95–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hay SI, Smith DL, Snow RW. Measuring malaria endemicity from intense to interrupted transmission. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:369–378. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70069-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hay SI, Snow RW. The Malaria Atlas Project: developing global maps of malaria risk. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Harbach RE. Review of the internal classification of the genus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae): the foundation for comparative systematics and phylogenetic research. Bull Entomol Res. 1994;84:331–342. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Harbach RE. The classification of genus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae): a working hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships. Bull Entomol Res. 2004;94:537–553. doi: 10.1079/ber2004321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Harbach RE. (2009) Mosquito taxonomic inventory ( http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info). Accessed 29 September 2009.
  • 35.Service MW, Townson H. The Anopheles vector. In: Gilles HM, Warrell DA, editors. Essential Malariology. Fourth edition ed. London: Arnold; 2002. pp. 59–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Takken W, Lindsay SW. Factors affecting the vectorial competence of Anopheles gambiae: a question of scale. In: Takken W, Scott TW , editors. Ecological Aspects for Application of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. pp. 75–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Service MW. The Anopheles vector. In: Gilles HM, Warrell DA , editors. Bruce-Chwatt's Essential Malariology. Third edition ed. London: Edward Arnold; 1993. pp. 96–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Service MW. Appendix II. Characteristics of some major Anopheles vectors of human malaria. In: Gilles HM, Warrell DA , editors. Bruce-Chwatt's Essential Malariology. Third edition ed. London: Edward Arnold; 1993. pp. 305–310. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Guerra CA, Hay SI, Lucioparedes LS, Gikandi PW, Tatem AJ, et al. Assembling a global database of malaria parasite prevalence for the Malaria Atlas Project. Malar J. 2007;6:17. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-6-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Knight KL. College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.: Thomas Say Foundation, Entomological Society of America ; 1978. Supplement to “A catalog of the mosquitoes of the world (Diptera: Culicidae)”.107 [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Knight KL, Stone A. College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.: Thomas Say Foundation, Entomological Society of America; 1977. A catalog of the mosquitoes of the world (Diptera: Culicidae). [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ward RA. Second supplement to “A catalog of the mosquitoes of the world (Diptera: Culicidae)”. Mosq Syst. 1984;16:227–270. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ward RA. Third supplement to “A catalog of the mosquitoes of the world (Diptera: Culicidae)”. Mosq Syst. 1992;24:177–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Southwood TRE. Habitat, templet for ecological strategies? Presidential address to British Ecological Society, 5 January 1977. J Anim Ecol. 1977;46:337–365. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rogers DJ. Models for vectors and vector-borne diseases. Adv Parasitol. 2006;62:1–35. doi: 10.1016/S0065-308X(05)62001-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chapman AD, Wieczorek J. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility; 2006. Guide to best practices for georeferencing. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wieczorek J, Guo Q, Hijmans RJ. The point-radius method for georeferencing locality descriptions and calculating associated uncertainty. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 2004;18:745–767. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Guralnick RP, Wieczorek J, Beaman R, Hijmans RJ. BioGeomancer: automated georeferencing to map the world's biodiversity data. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Guo Q, Liu Y, Wieczorek J. Georeferencing locality descriptions and computing associated uncertainty using a probabilistic approach. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 2008;22:1067–1090. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Coleman M, Sharp B, Seocharan I, Hemingway J. Developing an evidence-based decision support system for rational insecticide choice in the control of African malaria vectors. J Med Entomol. 2006;43:663–668. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2006)43[663:daedss]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hemingway J, Beaty BJ, Rowland M, Scott TW, Sharp BL. The Innovative Vector Control Consortium: improved control of mosquito-borne diseases. Trends Parasitol. 2006;22:308–312. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2006.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Van Bortel W, Trung HD, Thuan le K, Sochantha T, Socheat D, et al. The insecticide resistance status of malaria vectors in the Mekong region. Malar J. 2008;7:102. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-7-102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Koum G, Yekel A, Ndifon B, Simard F. Design and implementation of a mosquito database through an entomological ontology. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:2205–2211. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Argaez JA, Christen JA, Nakamura M, Soberon J. Prediction of potential areas of species distributions based on presence-only data. Environ Ecol Stat. 2005;12:27–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography. 2006;29:129–151. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Segurado P, Araujo MB. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J Biogeogr. 2004;31:1555–1568. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Leathwick JR, Elith J, Hastie T. Comparative performance of generalized additive models and multivariate adaptive regression splines for statistical modelling of species distributions. Ecol Model. 2006;199:188–196. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Potts JM, Elith J. Comparing species abundance models. Ecol Model. 2006;199:153–163. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Tan CO, Ozesmi U, Beklioglu M, Per E, Kurt B. Predictive models in ecology: comparison of performances and assessment of applicability. Ecol Informatics. 2006;1:195–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting. Ann Stat. 2000;28:337–374. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sexton J, Laake P. Boosted regression trees with errors in variables. Biometrics. 2007;63:586–592. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00718.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Guisan A, Edwards TC, Hastie T. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecol Model. 2002;157:89–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model. 2006;190:231–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gelfand AE, Schmidt AM, Wu S, Silander JA, Latimer A, et al. Modelling species diversity through species level hierarchical modelling. J Roy Stat Soc C-App. 2005;54:1–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Gelfand AE, Silander JA, Jr, Wu S, Latimer A, Lewis PO, et al. Explaining species distribution patterns through hierarchical modeling. Bayesian Analysis. 2006;1:41–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kery M, Royle JA. Hierarchical Bayes estimation of species richness and occupancy in spatially replicated surveys. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45:589–598. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Diggle P, Moyeed R, Rowlingson B, Thomson M. Childhood malaria in The Gambia: a case-study in model-based geostatistics. J Roy Stat Soc C-App. 2002;51:493–506. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Rattanasiri S, Bohning D, Rojanavipart P, Athipanyakom S. A mixture model application in disease mapping of malaria. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2004;35:38–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Gemperli A, Sogoba N, Fondjo E, Mabaso M, Bagayoko M, et al. Mapping malaria transmission in West and Central Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2006;11:1032–1046. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01640.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Gemperli A, Vounatsou P, Sogoba N, Smith T. Malaria mapping using transmission models: application to survey data from Mali. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:289–297. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gosoniu L, Vounatsou P, Sogoba N, Smith T. Bayesian modelling of geostatistical malaria risk data. Geospat Health. 2006;1:127–139. doi: 10.4081/gh.2006.287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Noor AM, Clements ACA, Gething PW, Moloney G, Borle M, et al. Spatial prediction of Plasmodium falciparum prevalence in Somalia. Malar J. 2008;7:159. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-7-159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Sogoba N, Vounatsou P, Bagayoko MM, Doumbia S, Dolo G, et al. The spatial distribution of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto and An. arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae) in Mali. Geospat Health. 2007;1:213–222. doi: 10.4081/gh.2007.269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Elith J, Burgman MA, Regan HM. Mapping epistemic uncertainties and vague concepts in predictions of species distribution. Ecol Model. 2002;157:313–329. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Tatem AJ, Goetz SJ, Hay SI. Fifty years of Earth-observation satellites. Am Sci. 2008;96:390–398. doi: 10.1511/2008.74.390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Hay SI, Tatem AJ, Graham AJ, Goetz SJ, Rogers DJ. Global environmental data for mapping infectious disease distribution. Adv Parasitol. 2006;62:37–77. doi: 10.1016/S0065-308X(05)62002-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Scharlemann JPW, Benz D, Hay SI, Purse BV, Tatem AJ, et al. Global data for ecology and epidemiology: a novel algorithm for temporal Fourier processing MODIS data. PLoS One. 2008;3:e1408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Rogers DJ. Satellites, space, time and the African trypanosomiases. Adv Parasitol. 2000;47:129–171. doi: 10.1016/s0065-308x(00)47008-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Rogers DJ, Robinson TP. Tsetse distribution. In: Maudlin I, Holmes PH, Miles MA, editors. The Trypanosomiases: CAB International; 2004. pp. 139–179. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Lozano-Fuentes S, Elizondo-Quiroga D, Farfan-Ale JA, Loroño-Pino MA, Garcia-Rejon J, et al. Use of Google Earth™ to strengthen public health capacity and facilitate management of vector-borne diseases in resource-poor environments. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:718–725. doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.045880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Walker K, Lynch M. Contributions of Anopheles larval control to malaria suppression in tropical Africa: review of achievements and potential. Med Vet Entomol. 2007;21:2–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2007.00674.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.W.H.O. WHO Technical Report Series, no 936. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 2006. Malaria vector control and personal protection: report of a WHO study group.72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.W.H.O. Document WHO/CDS/CPE/PVC/2004.10. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. Global strategic framework for integrated vector management. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Shililu J, Ghebremeskel T, Seulu F, Mengistu S, Fekadu H, et al. Seasonal abundance, vector behavior, and malaria parasite transmission in Eritrea. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2004;20:155–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Lengeler C. Insecticide-treated bed nets and curtains for preventing malaria. 2004. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. Art. No.:CD000363.pub2. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000363.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 86.Snow RW, Lindsay SW, Hayes RJ, Greenwood BM. Permethrin-treated bed nets (mosquito nets) prevent malaria in Gambian children. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1988;82:838–842. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(88)90011-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Sharma VP. Re-emergence of malaria in India. Indian J Med Res. 1996;103:26–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Konradsen F, van der Hoek W, Amerasinghe FP, Mutero C, Boelee E. Engineering and malaria control: learning from the past 100 years. Acta Trop. 2004;89:99–108. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2003.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 1985. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part I. The WHO African region and the southern WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Section III: vector bionomics, malaria epidemiology and control by geographical areas (a) West Africa (VBC/85.1-MAP/85.1).225 [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 1985. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part I. The WHO African region and the southern WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Section III: Vector bionomics, malaria epidemiology and control by geographical areas (b) equatorial Africa, (c) southern Africa (VBC/85.2-MAP/85.2).136 [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 1985. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part I. The WHO African region and the southern WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Section III: Vector bionomics, malaria epidemiology and control by geographical areas (d) East Africa, (e) eastern outer islands, (f) southwestern Arabia (VBC/85.3-MAP/85.3).244 [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 1988. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part II. The WHO European region and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Volume I: vector laboratory studies. (VBC/88.5-MAP/88.2).228 [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1990. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part II. The WHO European region and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Volume II: applied field studies. Section I: an overview of the malaria situation and current problems. Section II: vector distribution (VBC/90.1). [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 1990. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part II. The WHO European region and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Volume II: applied field studies. Section III: vector bionomics, malaria epidemiology and control by geographical areas (a) the Mediterranean basin (VBC/90.2-MAL/90.2).226 [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 1990. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part II. The WHO European region and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Volume II: applied field studies. Section III: vector bionomics, malaria epidemiology and control by geographical areas (b) Asia west of India (VBC/90.3-MAL/90.3).352 [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part III. The WHO South East Asia Region and the WHO Western Pacific Region. (CDT/MAL/94.1). [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Zahar AR. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1996. Vector bionomics in the epidemiology and control of malaria. Part III. The WHO South East Asia Region and the WHO Western Pacific Region. (CDT/MAL/96.1). [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Dusfour I, Harbach RE, Manguin S. Bionomics and systematics of the Oriental Anopheles sundaicus complex in relation to malaria transmission and vector control. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;71:518–524. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Garros C, Van Bortel W, Trung HD, Coosemans M, Manguin S. Review of the Minimus Complex of Anopheles, main malaria vector in Southeast Asia: from taxonomic issues to vector control strategies. Trop Med Int Health. 2006;11:102–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01536.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Harvey PH, Pagel MD. The comparative method in evolutionary biology; In: Harvey PH, May RM, editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Smith DL, McKenzie FE. Statics and dynamics of malaria infection in Anopheles mosquitoes. Malar J. 2004;3:13. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-3-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Killeen GF, McKenzie FE, Foy BD, Schieffelin C, Billingsley PF, et al. A simplified model for predicting malaria entomologic inoculation rates based on entomologic and parasitologic parameters relevant to control. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000;62:535–544. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2000.62.535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Smith DL, McKenzie FE, Snow RW, Hay SI. Revisiting the basic reproductive number for malaria and its implications for malaria control. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e42. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050042. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Le Menach A, Takala S, McKenzie FE, Perisse A, Harris A, et al. An elaborated feeding cycle model for reductions in vectorial capacity of night-biting mosquitoes by insecticide-treated nets. Malar J. 2007;6:10. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-6-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Text S1

Defining the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria.

(0.14 MB DOC)

Text S2

Pro forma for the abstraction of occurrence data for the dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria.

(0.08 MB DOC)

Text S3

Maps of expert opinion distribution and species occurrence records for the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria in the Americas.

(1.82 MB PDF)

Text S4

Maps of expert opinion distribution and species occurrence records for the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.

(3.02 MB PDF)

Text S5

Maps of expert opinion distribution and species occurrence records for the dominant Anopheles vector species (and species complexes) of human malaria in the Asia-Pacific region.

(4.11 MB PDF)


Articles from PLoS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES