Irrigation increases and stabilizes mosquito populations and increases West Nile virus incidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans have greatly altered earth's terrestrial water cycle with the majority of fresh water being used for agriculture. Irrigation changes spatial and temporal water availability and alters mosquito abundance and phenology. Previous studies evaluating the effect of irrigation on mosquito abundance and mosquito-borne disease have shown inconsistent results and little is known about the effect of irrigation on variability in mosquito abundance. We examined the effect of irrigation, climate and land cover on mosquito abundance and human West Nile virus (WNV) disease cases across California. Irrigation made up nearly a third of total water inputs, and exceeded precipitation in some regions. Abundance of two key vectors of several arboviruses, including WNV, Culex tarsalis and the Culex pipiens complex, increased 17-21-fold with irrigation. Irrigation reduced seasonal variability in C. tarsalis abundance by 36.1%. Human WNV incidence increased with irrigation, which explained more than a third (34.2%) of the variation in WNV incidence among California counties. These results suggest that irrigation can increase and decouple mosquito populations from natural precipitation variability, resulting in sustained and increased disease burdens. Shifts in precipitation due to climate change are likely to result in increased irrigation in many arid regions which could increase mosquito populations and disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".