Modeling relationships between climate and the frequency of human plague cases in the southwestern United States, 1960-1997.
Abstract
The relationships between climatic variables and the frequency of human plague cases (1960-1997) were modeled by Poisson regression for two adjoining regions in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico. Model outputs closely agreed with the numbers of cases actually observed, suggesting that temporal variations in plague risk can be estimated by monitoring key climatic variables, most notably maximum daily summer temperature values and time-lagged (1 and 2 year) amounts of late winter (February-March) precipitation. Significant effects also were observed for time-lagged (1 year) summer precipitation in the Arizona model. Increased precipitation during specific periods resulted in increased numbers of expected cases in both regions, as did the number of days above certain lower thresholds for maximum daily summer temperatures (80 degrees F in New Mexico and 85 degrees F in Arizona). The number of days above certain high-threshold temperatures exerted a strongly negative influence on the numbers of expected cases in both the Arizona and New Mexico models (95 degrees F and 90 degrees F, respectively). The climatic variables found to be important in our models are those that would be expected to influence strongly the population dynamics of the rodent hosts and flea vectors of plague.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Rainfall favours vegetative production, increase of small-mammal populations, rat flea-infestation rates, along with soil moisture, which promotes flea survival rates.
“Additionally, rainfall favours vegetative production, increase of small-mammal populations, rat flea-infestation rates, along with soil moisture, which promotes flea survival rates [65,66].”
From Fleas infesting pets in the era of emerging extra-intestinal nematodes (2013) · cites this paper as [66]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 166
- Authors
- Enscore, R. E., Biggerstaff, B. J., Brown, T. L., Fulgham, R. E., Reynolds, P. J., Engelthaler, D. M., Levy, C. E., Parmenter, R. R., Montenieri, J. A., Cheek, J. E., Grinnell, R. K., Ettestad, P. J., & Gage, K. L.
- Affiliations
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- Venue
- The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 186-196
- ISSN
- 0002-9637 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2139947272
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Yersinia bacterium, plague, ectoparasites research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Climate Change and Health Impacts
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Zoonotic diseases and public health
- Keywords
- human plague, climate and disease, summer temperature, precipitation, flea vectors, Yersinia pestis, northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, southwestern United States
- MeSH terms
- Arizona, Climate, Disasters, Humans, Medical Records, New Mexico, Plague, Retrospective Studies, Models, Statistical, Poisson Distribution
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