Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34688314›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2021

Updated distribution maps of predominant Culex mosquitoes across the Americas.

Morgan E Gorris, Andrew W Bartlow, Seth D Temple, Daniel Romero-Alvarez, Deborah P Shutt, Jeanne M Fair, Kimberly A Kaufeld, Sara Y Del Valle, Carrie A Manore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Range expansion ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Article
  18. [Identification ofJugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Morgan E GorrisInformation Systems and Modeling, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA. mgorris@lanl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3949-4274
Andrew W BartlowBiosecurity and Public Health, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Seth D TempleStatistical Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Daniel Romero-AlvarezInformation Systems and Modeling, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Deborah P ShuttInformation Systems and Modeling, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Jeanne M FairBiosecurity and Public Health, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Kimberly A KaufeldStatistical Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Sara Y Del ValleInformation Systems and Modeling, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Carrie A ManoreInformation Systems and Modeling, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.

Funding

Los Alamos National Laboratory 36A10C-XX0NLos Alamos National Laboratory 36A10C-XX4ELos Alamos National Laboratory 36A10C-XX6FLos Alamos National Laboratory 36A10C-XX9E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimates of the geographical distribution of Culex mosquitoes in the Americas have been limited to state and provincial levels in the United States and Canada and based on data from the 1980s. Since these estimates were made, there have been many more documented observations of mosquitoes and new methods have been developed for species distribution modeling. Moreover, mosquito distributions are affected by environmental conditions, which have changed since the 1980s. This calls for updated estimates of these distributions to understand the risk of emerging and re-emerging mosquito-borne diseases.

methodsWe used contemporary mosquito data, environmental drivers, and a machine learning ecological niche model to create updated estimates of the geographical range of seven predominant Culex species across North America and South America: Culex erraticus, Culex nigripalpus, Culex pipiens, Culex quinquefasciatus, Culex restuans, Culex salinarius, and Culex tarsalis.

resultsWe found that Culex mosquito species differ in their geographical range. Each Culex species is sensitive to both natural and human-influenced environmental factors, especially climate and land cover type. Some prefer urban environments instead of rural ones, and some are limited to tropical or humid areas. Many are found throughout the Central Plains of the USA.

conclusionsOur updated contemporary Culex distribution maps may be used to assess mosquito-borne disease risk. It is critical to understand the current geographical distributions of these important disease vectors and the key environmental predictors structuring their distributions not only to assess current risk, but also to understand how they will respond to climate change. Since the environmental predictors structuring the geographical distribution of mosquito species varied, we hypothesize that each species may have a different response to climate change.

Indexed as

Animal DistributionAmericasAnimalsClimate ChangeCulexHumansMachine LearningMosquito VectorsNorth AmericaSouth AmericaInfectious diseaseMosquito-borne diseaseMosquitoesNiche modelSpecies distributionVectors

Identifiers

PMID34688314
PMCPMC8542338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.