Bett, Bernard K.

Kamau, L.

Kitur, S.

Matoke-Muhia, D.

Wachira, L.

CGSpace

Occurrence and distribution of Anopheles mosquitoes in  Bura District, northern Kenya Damaris Matoke-Muhia, Luna Kamau, Lucy Wachira, Stanley Kitur, Bernard Bett  Results Methods Introduction Conclusions and Recommendations Figure 1.  Map showing the sampling locations  A total of 5500 mosquitoes were collected out of which 576 were morphologically identified as Anopheles.   67% of Anopheles were trapped outdoors; all adult An. arabiensis were trapped indoors.  Anopheles funestus s.s. (71.9%) was identified as the most prevalent vector, while An. arabiensis (7.9%), An. rivulorum (8.4%), An. parensis (8.2%) and An. leesoni (3.6%) were less common.   All species were found both indoors and outdoors apart from An. Arabiensis.  An. funestus s.s. and An. leesoni (all adults) were prevalent in Murukani, the non-irrigated scheme.  None of the samples analyzed was found to be infected with P. falciparum. Figure 2. Images showing the irrigated areas for farming Malaria is a disease of public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. In Kenya, parasite prevalence has been stratified into various eco-epidemiological zones. Intensive vector control interventions have been implemented resulting in slight decline of malaria occurrence especially in disease endemic areas. Northern Kenya is an arid and semi arid area which is characterized with seasonal malaria transmission. Information on vector prevalence in this area is scanty therefore this study sought to investigate the occurrence of Anopheles species and malaria parasite in Bura, northern Kenya. • Spatial occurrence of malaria  infections in Bura could be driven by these vectors: An. funestus s.s., An. arabiensis, An. rivulorum, An. parensis and An. lessoni. An. funestus being the most prevalent. • In order to minimize sampling bias, further vector trapping using different methods and continued parasite analysis should be done. • Vector control tools to be implemented as the enormous number of culicines collected could be playing a role in transmission of other infections. 020406080100120140Funestus Arabiensis Parensis Leesoni RivulorumNUMBER  SAMPLED ANOPHELES SPECIES  ANOPHELES SPECIES DIVERSITY PER COLLECTION SITE Farm Outdoor Indoor0510152025303540Funestus Arabiensis Parensis Leesoni RivulorumNo. of Anopheles per species Anopheles Species SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN MURUKANI: NON-IRRIGATED VILLAGE FarmOutdoorIndoor01020304050607080An. funestus An. arabiensis An. parensis An. leesoni An. rivulorum% prevalence Anopheles Species SPECIES PREVALENCE IN BURA Species Mosquito trapping was done from 10 villages along the Bura irrigation scheme  Adult mosquitoes were sampled from both indoor and outdoor setting using CDC light traps and resting boxes, larvae were collected from the irrigation canals and fresh water pools (Figure 3).  Morphological keys by Gillies and De Meillon (1968) & Gillies M.T. and Coetzee M.(1987) were used to distinguish Anopheles from culicines (Figure 4).  Sub-species identification was done using PCR as described by Scott et al. (1993) and Koekemoer et al. (2002) (Figure 5).  ELISA was used for P. falciparum sporozoite analysis as described by Wirtz et al. (1987) Figure 3. Setting of the CDC traps indoor and outdoor resting boxes  Bura community  KEMRI entomology  team   ILRI staff Acknowledgment Figure 4. Mosquitoes on a sorting tray Figure 5.  Bands scored on 3% agarose gel 

Occurrence and distribution of Anopheles mosquitoes in Bura District, northern Kenya

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/72726/1/Anopheles%20mosquitoes%20Bura.pdf

Occurrence and distribution of Anopheles mosquitoes in Bura District, northern Kenya

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace