Effects of land use and weather on the presence and abundance of mosquito-borne disease vectors in a urban and agricultural landscape in Eastern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weather and land use can significantly impact mosquito abundance and presence, and by consequence, mosquito-borne disease (MBD) dynamics. Knowledge of vector ecology and mosquito species response to these drivers will help us better predict risk from MBD. In this study, we evaluated and compared the independent and combined effects of weather and land use on mosquito species occurrence and abundance in Eastern Ontario, Canada. Data on occurrence and abundance (245,591 individuals) of 30 mosquito species were obtained from mosquito capture at 85 field sites in 2017 and 2018. Environmental variables were extracted from weather and land use datasets in a 1-km buffer around trapping sites. The relative importance of weather and land use on mosquito abundance (for common species) or occurrence (for all species) was evaluated using multivariate hierarchical statistical models. Models incorporating both weather and land use performed better than models that include weather only for approximately half of species (59% for occurrence model and 50% for abundance model). Mosquito occurrence was mainly associated with temperature whereas abundance was associated with precipitation and temperature combined. Land use was more often associated with abundance than occurrence. For most species, occurrence and abundance were positively associated with forest cover but for some there was a negative association. Occurrence and abundance of some species (47% for occurrence model and 88% for abundance model) were positively associated with wetlands, but negatively associated with urban (Culiseta melanura and Anopheles walkeri) and agriculture (An. quadrimaculatus, Cs. minnesotae and An. walkeri) environments. This study provides predictive relationships between weather, land use and mosquito occurrence and abundance for a wide range of species including those that are currently uncommon, yet known as arboviruses vectors. Elucidation of these relationships has the potential to contribute to better prediction of MBD risk, and thus more efficiently targeted prevention and control measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".