Cited by 163Malaria Research and ControlMosquito-borne diseases and controlParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment

Malaria transmission risk variations derived from different agricultural practices in an irrigated area of northern Tanzania

Ijumba, J. N., Mosha, F. W., Lindsay, S. W.·2002·Medical and Veterinary Entomology

Abstract

Malaria vector Anopheles and other mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) were monitored for 12 months during 1994-95 in villages of Lower Moshi irrigation area (37 degrees 20' E, 3 degrees 21' S; approximately 700 m a.s.l.) south of Mount Kilimanjaro in northern Tanzania. Adult mosquito populations were sampled fortnightly by five methods: human bait collection indoors (18.00-06.00 hours) and outdoors (18.00-24.00 hours); from daytime resting-sites indoors and outdoors; by CDC light-traps over sleepers. Anopheles densities and rates of survival, anthropophily and malaria infection were compared between three villages representing different agro-ecosystems: irrigated sugarcane plantation; smallholder rice irrigation scheme, and savannah with subsistence crops. Respective study villages were Mvuleni (population 2200), Chekereni (population 3200) and Kisangasangeni (population approximately/= 1000), at least 7 km apart. Anopheles arabiensis Patton was found to be the principal malaria vector throughout the study area, with An. funestus Giles sensu lato of secondary importance in the sugarcane and savannah villages. Irrigated sugarcane cultivation resulted in water pooling, but this did not produce more vectors. Anopheles arabiensis densities averaged four-fold higher in the ricefield village, although their human blood-index was significantly less (48%) than in the sugarcane (68%) or savannah (66%) villages, despite similar proportions of humans and cows (ratio 1:1.1-1.4) as the main…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.0269-283x.2002.00337.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ijumba, J. N., Mosha, F. W., & Lindsay, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TZ)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Ijumba, J. N.
Venue
Medical and Veterinary Entomology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
28-38
ISSN
  • 0269-283X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2915
OpenAlex
W2009733206
Cited by
163
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical and Veterinary Entomology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IHI Repository (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Parasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Keywords
malaria transmission risk, Anopheles arabiensis, Anopheles funestus, irrigated rice, sugar plantations, agricultural practices, vectorial capacity, entomological inoculation rate, sporozoite rate, anthropophily, vector survival, gonotrophic cycle, agroecosystems, mosquito surveillance
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Anopheles, Female, Humans, Insect Vectors, Malaria, Mosquito Control, Culicidae, Population Density, Population Dynamics, Oryza, Risk Factors, Seasons, Socioeconomic Factors, Tanzania, Weather

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review