Potential current and future distribution for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Colombia: important disease vectors

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2886420/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Potential current and future distribution for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Colombia: important disease vectors

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2886420/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Invasive mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti (African) and Aedes albopictus (Asian), are global vectors of dengue, Zika and chikungunya and are present in Colombia. For this reason, the objective was to know the potential geographic distribution of the A. aegypti and A. albopictus vectors under current and future conditions in Colombia. For this, a data set was formed with the records for each species in its native area and in Colombia, which, together with layers of bioclimatic variables, were implemented in ecological niche models (ENM). To estimate in current conditions, the Wallace platform was used, while for future estimations, under three climate change scenarios (SSP245, SSP370, and SSP585) in two time periods (2041–2060 and 2081–2100), the MaxEnt software was used. Additionally, the niche overlap was plotted and the ideal area and the population at risk in Colombia were quantified. It is suggested that both species share ideal areas in the central and western zones of the country, occupying over 70% of extension, where A. aegypti would reach maximum altitudes of 3,300 m and A. albopictus up to 3,000 m. In the future for both species it is estimated that, with higher emissions, the potential distribution could decrease, but they could invade areas with altitudes above 3,000 m (colder). It is concluded that, currently, A. aegypti and A. albopictus could have similar geographic distribution in Colombia and that, in the following years, climate change could lead to latitudinal and altitudinal variations in the distribution areas of these vectors.

dengue

Culicidae

chikungunya

climate change

niche modeling

Zika

Aedes aegypti (African) and Aedes albopictus (Asian) mosquitos are important invasive species in the transmission of arboviral diseases (Rey and Lounibos 2015). In their native areas, both species are the principal vectors for yellow fever, dengue, chikungunya, and Zika, diseases that affect public health globally (Paupy et al. 2009; Souza-Neto et al. 2019; Lwande et al. 2020). In America, A. aegypti is vector for dengue, chikungunya, and Zika (Urdaneta-Marquez and Failloux 2011; Ferreira-de-Brito et al. 2016; Costa-da-Silva et al. 2017) while for A. albopictus natural individuals have been found infected with dengue and Zika (De Figueiredo et al. 2010; Sanchez-Rodriguez et al. 2014; Correa-Morales et al. 2019; Alencar et al. 2021) and infection with these arboviruses has been reported during outbreaks in Mexico and Brazil (Ibáñez-Bernal et al. 1997; Ricas et al. 2020), thereby A. albopictus has the potential of being an important vector in America (Garcia-Rejon et al. 2021). The spread of these species to new locations beyond their native area is closely related with anthropic activities, like trade (specially maritime), tourism, among others (Lounibos 2002; Bonizzoni et al. 2013; Eritja et al. 2017; Eskildsen et al. 2018). Furthermore, the presence of these species is related with temperature and rainfall, which, influence on the abundance and distribution of their populations (Marinho et al. 2016; da Cruz Ferreira et al. 2017; Ezeakacha and Yee 2019). Hence, in locations where the species are found, A. aegypti is reproduced in urban areas in artificial containers with standing water, like wheels, barrels, tires, water tanks, among others (Getachew et al. 2015; Ferede et al. 2018), while the tiger mosquito prefers sub-urban or rural habitats in which it is reproduced in wild reservoirs, like tree holes or bromeliads, and even artificial containers (Gratz 2004; Delatte et al. 2008; Rao 2010). Nevertheless, presence and reproduction have also been detected of A. aegypti in rural and sub-urban zones (Pérez-Castro et al. 2016; Djiappi-Tchamen et al. 2021; Dalpadado et al. 2022) and of A. albopictus in urban zones (Abílio et al. 2018; Camargo et al. 2021). The eggs of these species have a favorable characteristic in their shell, which allows them to tolerate desiccation (Ezeakacha and Yee 2019) and stay in a state of diapause when environmental conditions are not adequate for their hatching and survival (Diniz et al. 2017; Lee and Duvall 2022). Due to this, in their adult form, A. albopictus individuals can establish themselves in places of transition between the tropical and temperate zones of the planet (zones in which A. aegypti does not manage to survive), therefore, its presence has been reported in the northern United States as well as in northern European countries (Thomas et al. 2012; Vega-Rúa et al. 2014). In turn, A. aegypti distribution is restricted to the world’s tropical zones (Kamal et al. 2018).

Currently, in Colombia, A. aegypti is present in 80% of the continental extension up to 2,600 m (Ruiz-López et al. 2016) while A. albopictus has been detected in some municipalities of Colombia (Vélez et al. 1998; Suárez 2001; Cuéllar-Jiménez et al. 2007; Gutiérrez et al. 2011a-Uribe et al. 2011; Zamora et al. 2015; Carvajal et al. 2016; Ortiz-Canamejoy and Villota 2018). However, recently our group estimated that this species could be present in 96.14% of the territory up to 3,000 m (Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021). In Colombia, A. aegypti is the main focus of vector control programs (Ardila-Roldán et al. 2013; Caldera et al. 2013; Aguirre-Obando et al. 2015; Conde et al. 2015; Cabezas et al. 2017). On the contrary, given the little research and the low transmission of arboviruses reported by A. albopictus in Colombia, this mosquito is currently somewhat irrelevant in vector control programs, although specimens infected with dengue have been sporadically detected (Gómez-Palacio et al. 2017).

Given the epidemiologic importance of A. aegypti and A. albopictus, it is necessary to know their potential geographic distribution in Colombia and a tool that would enable predicting the distribution of these species (and their potential epidemiological risk) is ecological niche modeling (ENM) (Soberón and Peterson 2005; Peterson et al. 2011). This will permit knowing the potential habitats of the mosquitos and serve as indicative to know where to focus vector control programs, as well as identify where the populations of both species overlap, the amount of human population potentially exposed to disease contagion, their range of latitudinal and altitudinal distribution and the future variations considering the effects of climate change (Kamal et al. 2018; Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021). This approach has been used to estimate the possible distribution of diseases, like malaria and yellow fever, as well as the distribution of their vectors (Liria and Navarro 2010; Altamiranda-Saavedra et al. 2017; Uusitalo et al. 2019). Specifically for A. aegypti, studies have been conducted to learn of its potential distribution locally (city and country) (Mweya et al. 2013; Fatima et al. 2016; Estallo et al. 2018) and globally (Liu-Helmersson et al. 2019) and for A. albopictus at local level (city and country) (Neteler et al. 2011; Kalan et al. 2017) and continental level (Fischer et al. 2014; Oliveira et al. 2021). Likewise, studies have been carried out implementing ENM in both species globally, estimating their distribution in the past (Kraemer et al. 2019), present (Kraemer et al. 2015) and future (Kamal et al. 2018; Laporta et al. 2023) besides estimations locally (country) (Ducheyne et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2019; Lubinda et al. 2019).

In turn, climate change could influence directly on the geographic distribution of both species (Kraemer et al. 2019; Laporta et al. 2023). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included in its 6th evaluation report (CMIP6) the new scenarios known as Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP), where scenarios SSP245, SSP370, and SSP585 are found (O’Neill et al. 2017). These estimate distinct greenhouse gas emission levels and CO₂ over time based on the human actions that could be undertaken for mitigation and adaptation of climate change (Eyring et al. 2016; Riahi et al. 2017). Bearing in mind the different gas emission scenarios, research conducted until now suggest that the geographic distribution of A. aegypti and A. albopictus could vary favorably in the long term, which would imply that transmission of the viral diseases transmitted by these vectors could spread to new parts of the country and human populations not affected previously could be exposed to contagion (Jarvis et al. 2008; Caminade et al. 2019).

Until now, three studies that implement niche modeling in these species have been performed. The first was conducted for A. aegypti (Portilla Cabrera and Selvaraj 2020), the second for A. albopictus (Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021) and the third that corresponds a Master's thesis yet to be published that includes the estimation of the potential distribution for both species carried out with records between 1979 and 2013. However, prior studies were projected to the future using the Representative Concentric Pathways (RCP) emission scenarios for the periods 2050 and 2070. The estimations herein were performed under the new models (CMIP6) and climate change scenarios (SSP245, 370, and 585) (Eyring et al. 2016; Riahi et al. 2017) and considering all the occurrences available to the moment in their native areas (Africa and Asia) and Colombia, from which data from the native areas were modeled and projected toward Colombia.

Due to the foregoing, it is necessary to know the potential geographic distribution of the A. aegypti and A. albopictus vectors under current and future conditions in Colombia, given that, under favorable climate conditions, these species show favorable reproductive increase that lets them increase quickly their population size and, consequently, the probability of increasing the epidemiological cases of the arbovirus these species transmit.

Study area

Colombia is located on the northwestern corner of South America, bordering with Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, and Panama. Geologically, it is defined by a mountain region that crosses the country from north to south, known as the Colombian Andes. It is divided into three ranges (cordilleras): the Western Cordillera, the Central Cordillera, and the Eastern Cordillera, which cross various departments, like Antioquia, Boyacá, Caldas, Cauca, Cundinamarca, Huila, Nariño, Norte de Santander, Quindío, Risaralda, Santander, Tolima, and Valle del Cauca (Gómez et al. 2020).

Records of occurrence

To determine the potential geographic distribution of A. aegypti (Africa) and A. albopictus (Asia) in Colombia, records of their native areas were obtained from the GBIF database (https://www.gbif.org/), as well as all their records of occurrence in Colombia, using additional records from the National Health Institute and scientific articles. This dataset was purged for duplicate occurrences, occurrences with geospatial problems and multiple occurrences in a single pixel at a radius of 5 Km through the following libraries: sp 1.4-1 (Pebesma et al. 2020), raster 3.4-5 (Hijmans, Etten, et al. 2020) and dismo 1.3-3 (Hijmans, Phillips, et al. 2020) using the R Studio environment (CoreTeam, 2017). The datasets resulting for each species were used to calibrate and validate the models.

Environmental variables

To estimate the current models in both species, the 19 bioclimatic variables available in Worldclim v2.1 (www.worldclim.org) were obtained at a spatial resolution of 2.5 min (approximately 5 Km) (Fick and Hijmans, 2017; Soberón, Osorio-Olvera and Peterson, 2017). To diminish the multicollinearity among the variables (Naimi, 2017), a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and a Spearman correlation were applied implementing the occurrence records purged for each species (Jiménez-García & Peterson, 2019; Pradhan, 2016) in the R Studio environment through the following libraries: raster 3.4-5 (Hijmans, Etten, et al. 2020), rgdal 1.5–23 (Bivand et al. 2021), usdm 1.1–18 (Naimi, 2017), nortest 1.0–4 (Gross & Ligges, 2022) and MVN 5.9 (Korkmaz et al. 2022). The environmental variables obtained were the base for current and future estimations.

Moreover, to estimate the potential future distribution, the bioclimatic variables selected under the scenarios of Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP) 245, 370 and 585 were used during the periods 2041 ‒ 2060 and 2081 ‒ 2100 extracted from WorldClim v2.1 at a resolution of 2.5 min, employing the Global Circulation Models (GCM) MRI-ESM2-0, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MIROC-ES2L, GISS-E2-1-H, IPSL-CM6A-LR and UKESM1-0-LL (Flynn & Mauritsen, 2020).

Ecological niche modeling

The resulting bioclimatic variables were adjusted to the accessible areas (M) of the mosquitos using the records of occurrence obtained for their native area. To perform the estimations of the current models for A. aegypti and A. albopictus, the Wallace platform was implemented from R Studio (Kass et al. 2022). In it, the accessible area (M) was adjusted by using the convex least polygon function on the records found in each native area. Ten-thousand background points were added and the 0–10 regularization multiplier was implemented for better model predictability. In addition, the estimation was conducted with the Linear (L), Quadratic (Q), Hinge (H), and Product (P) parameters, using combinations L, LQ, H, LQH, and LQHP (Jiménez-García & Peterson, 2019; Valencia-Rodríguez et al. 2021). The models were selected based on the area under the curve (AUC) of mean validation, which were projected for South America permitting to know the potential current geographic distribution of A. aegypti and A. albopictus in Colombia.

Future estimations were elaborated in MaxEnt software because Wallace has not incorporated the new GCM and SSP. For this, the same calibration parameters were adjusted according with the current models selected for each species and were extracted form Wallace the layers of the variables selected cut at the native extension of A. aegypti and A. albopictus. All the estimations were conducted through the maximum entropy algorithm, implemented in the MaxEnt software (Phillips et al. 2006). Ten replicas were executed per 1000 iterations using the complementary log-log output format, deactivating the “Do clamping” and “Extrapolation” parameters and under the 10th percentile training presence threshold rule. To obtain a final map that represented each emission scenario in both periods, the average between the predictions generated with each selected GCM was calculated. All the estimations obtained were reclassified onto a binary format considering a default value (E) of 0.05 (Liu et al. 2005; Jiménez-García and Peterson 2019; Marques et al. 2020). In addition, the potential extension area was quantified in all scenarios.

To estimate the human population potentially exposed to disease transmission by A. aegypti and A. albopictus currently, a search was conducted in the most recent population census by departments in the DANE web page (Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística - https://www.dane.gov.co/). Thereafter, bearing in mind the areas estimated by the current model, the number of people for each department was quantified at risk of contagion and, finally, the information was consolidated at country level. Further, the amount of population at risk for the future scenarios was estimated employing the same data from the most recent population census because the figures of the rate of population growth in Colombia for the periods of interest are unknown (2041–2060 and 2081–2100).

To illustrate the niche overlap of both species in Colombia, a three-dimensional ellipsoid plot was generated in Niche A software. (Qiao et al. 2016). This was constructed from the raster obtained from the current estimations and the bioclimatic variables selected for each species.

Validation of the models

To validate the models, the ntbox library was used (Osorio-Olvera et al. 2020) incorporated in the R Studio environment employing the occurrences of mosquitos for Colombia. Hence, the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated and to obtain greater support on the performance of the models, a partial analysis of the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC-partial) was performed. For this analysis, parameter E was adjusted to 0.05 per 1000 iterations. In this analysis, the criterion is that the significance values with P > 0.05 indicate that the estimates are not better than those generated by a random model, while AUC with P < 0.05 indicate that the estimated predictions are statistically better than those obtained through a random model (Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021; Peterson et al. 2008).

For native areas, the systematized search yielded 422 occurrences for A. aegypti and 479 for A. albopictus. The records obtained for A. aegypti are found mainly in the central part of the African continent in the sub-Saharan region (Fig. 1a). In turn, A. albopictus in Asia are found in the Asian southeast in countries located around the Bay of Bengal including islands, like Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei (Fig. 1b). Occurrences obtained for Colombia register A. aegypti in 24 departments (482 occurrences) in altitudes between 0 and 2,916 m, while the records obtained for A. albopictus are distributed in nine departments (60 occurrences) found in altitudes between 0 and 2,035 m (Fig. 1c).

Table 1 lists the variables selected that were used in the ENM for A. aegypti and A. albopictus in Colombia. A. aegypti under current and future scenarios occurred throughout the Colombian mountain region (1,218–5,453 m). However, it had non-suitable areas in the archipelago of San Andrés y Providencia and in large zones of Putumayo, Caquetá, Nariño, Cauca, Valle, Chocó, Guainía, Vaupés, and Amazonía (Fig. 2a). Meanwhile, A. albopictus would be present to a lesser extent at altitudes between 2,916–5,453 m with non-suitable areas in large zones of La Guajira, Chocó and in southern Nariño (Fig. 2b). The potential areas for both mosquitos would remain constant principally in the central and western regions of the country, varying mostly in mountainous regions and in northern and eastern regions of the country (Fig. 2).

Table 1

Climatic variables selected for the ENM of *A. aegypti and A. albopictus* in Colombia
Variables	Species
Variables	A. aegypti	A. albopictus
Seasonality of the temperature (%)		X
Annual precipitation (mm)	X	X
Precipitation of the wettest month (mm)	X	X
Precipitation of the driest month (mm)	X	X
Precipitation of the wettest quarter (mm)	X
Mean Diurnal Range (°C)	X	X
Mean annual temperature (°C)	X	X
Mean temperature of the coldest quarter (°C)	X

Estimations under a current context suggest that A. aegypti (AUC = 0.85 and ROC partial p = 0.00) and A. albopictus (AUC = 0.94 and ROCpartial p = 0.00) are distributed in a vast extension of the country (Table 2). According to the estimations for the current model, A. aegypti could reach altitudes between 0 and 3,300 m with low distribution in the south of the country in the departments of Guainía, Vaupés, Amazonía, and the lower part of Caquetá. Likewise, few potential zones are estimated in the west in the departments of Chocó, Valle, Cauca, Nariño, and Putumayo while for the archipelago of San Andrés y Providencia no potential distribution is estimated (Fig. 3a). The distribution for A. albopictus suggests that it would be in lower altitudes than A. aegypti with maximum altitudes up to 3,000 m. In some departments, like La Guajira, Chocó, Valle, and Cauca its potential distribution is low and has suitable areas in San Andrés y Providencia (Fig. 3b). According with the potential distribution zones of both species, the total population at risk for the current context would be approximately 44 million people, with A. albopictus being the mosquito with greater area occupied (Table 2). Additionally, suitable areas shared between both species are found in large part of the country, except for La Guajira, in high zones and some areas in the western region (Chocó, Valle, and Cauca) (Fig. 3c).

Table 2

Extension and population at risk in areas of potential current and future distribution of *A. aegypti and A. albopictus* in Colombia
Period	Scenario	Area of potential distribution (Km²)		Area of absence (Km²)		Area occupied (%)		Population at risk		Total population at risk
Period	Scenario	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	Total population at risk
Current	‒	800,101.3	987,997.4	341,646.7	153,750.6	70.1	86.5	20,045,328.8	23,902,724.2	43,948,053
2041 ‒ 2060	SSP245	711,118.1	971,618.6	430,629.9	170,129.4	62.3	85.1	22,089,795.6	26,640,769.6	48,730,565
	SSP370	737,533.3	951,780.5	404,214.7	189,967.5	64.6	83.4	24,117,593.7	27,138,248.8	51,255,843
	SSP585	780,113.7	945,865.4	361,634.3	195,882.6	68.3	82.8	25,398,631.2	28,634,137.3	54,032,768
2081 ‒ 2100	SSP245	787,929.3	987,847.9	353,818.7	153,900.1	69.0	86.5	32,031,753.3	29,523,699.7	61,555,453
	SSP370	724,806.2	819,469.6	416,941.8	322,278.4	63.5	71.8	31,067,977.4	29,441,270.5	60,509,248
	SSP585	540,860.6	524,289.7	600,887.4	617,458.3	47.4	45.9	30,825,002.6	26,874,759.7	57,699,762
A: A. aegypti; B: A. albopictus

Estimations under a future scenario estimate that the distribution of A. aegypti and A. albopictus, as well as the potential population at risk, diminishes considerably during the period 2081–2100 under scenarios SSP370 and SSP585 (Table 2). For the period 2041–2060, A. aegypti and A. albopictus, diminish their distribution under scenario SSP245 with respect to the current distribution (Table 2). Particularly, the distribution of A. aegypti diminishes in departments, like La Guajira, Córdoba, and Norte de Santander, nonetheless, its distribution increases in the southern part of Amazonía on the border with Brazil (Fig. 4a), as well as the distribution of A. albopictus increases in Cauca, Valle, and Chocó (Fig. 4b). In both species, the decrease in potential areas is evidenced in the northern part of the country, specifically in the departments of Magdalena, Atlántico, Bolívar, Cesar, Santander, Sucre, and Antioquia (Fig. 4c).

During the period 2081–2100, A. aegypti increases its distribution range in Tolima and Santander and even reaches altitudes between 2,916–5,453 m in departments, like Cundinamarca, Boyacá, and Nariño; however, its distribution diminishes in La Guajira and Córdoba (Fig. 5a). Furthermore, the presence of A. aegypti observed during the previous period in southern Amazonía disappears completely for this period (Fig. 5a). For A. albopictus, the distribution increases in Quindío, Meta, and Norte de Santander, but diminishes in Cesar, Santander, Antioquia, and Vichada (Fig. 5b). Likewise, A. albopictus increases its spread in altitudes between 2,035–2,916 m. The distribution of both mosquitos increases mostly in the western region (Nariño, Cauca, Valle, Putumayo, Huila, Risaralda, Caldas, Antioquia, and Cundinamarca) in some zones of the eastern region (Caquetá and Boyacá) and diminishes in the north of the country (Magdalena, Atlántico, Bolívar, Córdoba, and Sucre) (Fig. 5c).

For the period 2041–2060, under the SSP370 scenario, distribution of A. aegypti diminishes in Norte de Santander (Fig. 4d) while diminishing for A. albopictus in Vichada. In San Andrés y Providencia, the distribution does not change (Fig. 4e). In turn, and for both species, their distribution diminishes in the north of the country (Guajira, Magdalena, Atlántico, Bolívar, Sucre, Cesar, Córdoba, Santander, and Antioquia) (Fig. 4f). For the period 2081–2100, the distribution of A. aegypti diminishes in Norte de Santander and Guainía, nevertheless, it increases in Antioquia and Santander with suitable zones in the southern Amazonía on the border with Peru (Fig. 5d). In addition, A. albopictus diminishes its distribution in Santander, Caldas, Casanare, San Andrés y Providencia (Fig. 5e). For both mosquitos, a decrease is estimated in the northwestern region (La Guajira, Magdalena, Atlántico, Bolívar, Cesar, Sucre, Córdoba, Antioquia, and Chocó) and in the eastern region (Vichada, Arauca, Meta and Guaviare). However, it increases in the central and western zones of the country (Nariño, Putumayo, Valle, Cauca, Caquetá, Huila, Tolima, Quindío, Risaralda, Caldas, Cundinamarca, and Boyacá) (Fig. 5f). In this scenario, A. aegypti and A. albopictus have suitable zones in altitudes between 2,916 and 5,453 m.

For the period 2041–2060 under scenario SSP585, A. aegypti diminishes its potential area in the western region (Valle, Tolima, Quindío, Risaralda, Chocó, and Caldas) and has new suitable zones in the southern part of Amazonía (Fig. 4g). Likewise, A. albopictus diminishes in Vichada and Casanare (Fig. 4h). In both species, the distribution diminishes in the north of the country (La Guajira, Magdalena, Atlántico, Bolívar, Cesar, Santander, Sucre, Antioquia, and Córdoba), maintaining shared areas in the eastern, western, and southern regions (Amazonía) of the country (Fig. 4i).

In the period 2081–2100 and for A. aegypti, a decrease is estimated in Vichada and in southern Amazonía, but increases to its north, on the border with the department of Caquetá (Fig. 5h). In turn, A. albopictus would disappear completely from the archipelago of San Andrés y Providencia and in a large extension of Vaupés and Amazonía (Fig. 5h). The distribution for both species diminishes in the departments located in the north of the country (Guajira, Magdalena, Atlántico, Bolívar, Cesar, Sucre, Antioquia, Córdoba) and in the southeastern part (Caquetá, Arauca, Guainía, Casanare, Meta, and Guaviare). However, an increase of it is estimated toward higher zones in the northern and western parts (Nariño, Putumayo, Cauca, Huila, Risaralda, Caldas, Caquetá, Tolima, Quindío, Cundinamarca, Norte de Santander, Santander and Boyacá) (Fig. 5i).

Figure 6 Three-dimensional graphic including the variables selected implemented in the ENM and which shows the ecological niche overlap between A. aegypti (orange ellipsoid) and A. albopictus (blue ellipsoid) under the current conditions in Colombia. The grey points correspond to the environmental cloud. The axes are represented by three environmental variables selected by default in the software

The A. aegypti mosquito is the principal vector for dengue, Zika and chikungunya in America, including Colombia (Vega-Rúa et al. 2014; Pérez-Castro et al. 2016; Musso et al. 2018). On the contrary, A. albopictus – although more relevant in the transmission of these arbovirus in other continents (Paupy et al. 2009; Bonizzoni et al. 2013), its epidemiological role is still poorly known in America and, thereby, in Colombia. Geographically, Colombia is divided into 32 departments and occupies a total extension of 2,070,408 Km² of which 1,141,748 Km² are continental territory and 928,660 Km² maritime territory (Gómez et al. 2020). Based on the aforementioned and on the records obtained, A. aegypti and A. albopictus mosquitos are present in 75% and 28% of the departments of Colombia, respectively. Our estimations suggest distribution in a vast extension of the country with an area occupied of 70% by A. aegypti and 86% by A. albopictus. Currently, no studies were found to relate the total extension occupied by A. aegypti in Colombia in spite of studies referring to niche modeling (Portilla Cabrera and Selvaraj 2020). However, it has been recorded in at least 24 of the 32 departments in altitudes up to 2,600 m (Ruiz-López et al. 2016), thus, this mosquito is associated as occupying 80% of extension at the national level. In turn, A. albopictus has been registered in less departments than A. aegypti although 80% occupied area has been estimated in the Colombian territory currently (Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021).

At the national level, A. aegypti has been registered in altitudes from 0 to 2,600 m (Ruiz-López et al. 2016)d albopictus between 0 and 1,800 m (Rúa-Uribe et al. 2011). Our estimations suggest that currently A. aegypti would have suitable zones in altitudes between 0 and 3,300 m and A. albopictus between 0 and 3,000 m. Studies related with niche modeling for Colombia do not relate the environmental suitability of A. aegypti with altitude, however, records link this species in maximum altitudes of 2,500 m with predominant distribution in altitudes below 1,000 m (Portilla Cabrera and Selvaraj 2020). A single study for A. albopictus referring to niche modeling, estimated its potential distribution in Colombia in altitudes up to 3,000 m (Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021). Until now, it is known that A. aegypti has greater plasticity in low altitudes (Kramer et al. 2021). In the present study, of the 481 occurrences obtained of A. aegypti for Colombia, 304 were in altitudes below 1,000 m.

Our estimations under the current context suggest that A. aegypti and A. albopictus would have a potential area > 70% in Colombia, where both species would not present environmental suitability in a part of the coastal region of the Pacific Ocean. Particularly, A. aegypti would not be present in much of the Amazonía and A. albopictus in a part of La Guajira. The aforementioned differs from that found in the literature, given that studies that implemented niche modeling on these species globally have suggested suitability in a large part of the Colombian territory, including said areas for both species (Kamal et al. 2018). On the other hand, other studies suggest that A. aegypti would be the species with largest distribution in Colombia with environmental suitability in the Amazon region (Kraemer et al. 2015; Laporta et al. 2023). At Colombian level, suitable zones have been estimated for A. aegypti around the Colombian Andes and toward the country’s northwest (Portilla Cabrera and Selvaraj 2020). Furthermore, the estimate obtained for A. albopictus is similar to the study conducted on potential distribution of A. albopictus in Colombia, differing only in La Guajira (Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021). Nonetheless, the unpublished Master’s thesis suggests that A. albopictus would be present solely around the mountainous zone. The difference between the estimates from the studies for Colombia may be due to the modelling and projection of the ENM. The authors already mentioned performed the modelling based on the occurrences obtained for Colombia while our research group conducted the modelling in native areas and projected for Colombia (Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. 2021), which has been suggested and implemented in numerous studies on niche modeling (Peterson et al. 2011; Cuervo et al. 2023).

The estimates obtained for the future suggest that the potential distribution of A. aegypti and A. albopictus diminishes under the three climate change scenarios in the northern and eastern parts of the country in both time periods (2041–2060 and 2081–2100). Globally, it is suggested that for the Colombian territory, the distribution of A. aegypti and A. albopictus increases with longer time periods under the different climate change scenarios (Kamal et al. 2018). On the contrary, Laporta et al. (2023) estimated a decrease in the potential distribution of both species under the effect of climate change. Other studies found at the national level, including the unpublished Master’s thesis, suggest that A. aegypti and A. albopictus increase their future potential distribution under different climate change scenarios (Portilla Cabrera and Selvaraj 2020). However, Echeverry-Cárdenas et al. (2021) suggest the decrease in the potential distribution of A. albopictus for future years. Although the studies were conducted under different scenarios, it would be – likewise – expected that climate change impact upon and modify the geographic distribution of these vectors, bearing in mind natural phenomena and climatic variations that can take place in future years in South America (Sánchez and Posada 2022). Also, calibration in the native area influences the estimates in the future because these are projected from the model obtained under current conditions (Barve et al. 2011; Peterson et al. 2011). Thereby, given this, some national studies differ under the current and future contexts.

The biological cycle of the mosquitos is influenced by environmental variables, like temperature, precipitation, and humidity (Tabachnick 2016; Reinhold et al. 2018). Current and future estimates suggest non-suitable zones in the departments located in the coastal region of the Pacific Ocean (Chocó, Valle, Cauca, Nariño). This area of Colombia is known for being one of the wettest regions of the Neotropics, with annual precipitation between 8,000 and 10,000 mm and maximum annual temperatures of 32.2°C (Poveda-M et al. 2004; Rangel-ch and Arellano-P 2017). Thereby, by being a zone with heavy rainfall, the biological cycle of the mosquitos can be affected because excess humidity and precipitation affects pupae and larvae development (Costa et al. 2010; Dhimal et al. 2015). In addition, all estimates suggest variations in the north (La Guajira, Atlántico, Magdalena, Cesar, Sucre, Bolívar, and Córdoba) and east of the country (Arauca, Casanare, Meta, Vichada, Guaviare, Guainía, Vaupés, Caquetá, and Amazonía). These zones are characterized for having a mean temperature ranging between 25 and 28°C with relative humidity < 75% in some sectors (La Guajira and Cesar) (IDEAM 2010). Consequently, these regions, in the future and under the influence of climate change, would be regions with high temperatures that would not be optimal for the development of mosquitoes, given that an increase of at least 0.6°C (± 0.5) is estimated for the period 2041–2070 at the national level (IDEAM 2010). According to the climate change scenarios estimated in Colombia by the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM), for the period 2011–2070 in the central west (around Antioquia and Boyacá) and toward the north of the country, there would be decreased precipitation between 5% and 10%. Conversely, the eastern and southeastern regions would have increments between 5% and 25% (IDEAM 2010). The optimal temperature for the development of A. aegypti and A. albopictus is between 20 and 32°C and these respond negatively at temperatures > 39°C and < 16°C (Marinho et al. 2016; Reinhold et al. 2018; Ezeakacha and Yee 2019). Therefore, in the north of the country, the biological cycle of the mosquitos may be affected due to increased temperatures and decreased precipitation while in the east of the country, this cycle would be affected by increased temperatures and excess precipitation.

The distribution of these species in the future could be stable in a region of the western part; due to this, it is foreseen that in the future, the departments located in the Colombian Andes (Tolima, Santander, Risaralda, Quindío, Norte de Santander, Huila, Cundinamarca, Caldas, Boyacá, Antioquia, Cauca, and Nariño) increase their temperature and precipitation (López-Latorre and Neira 2016) causing potentially a suitable environment for the establishment of these species in these locations in the future. For example, for the coastal region of the Pacific Ocean and the central southern part of the western region increased precipitation is estimated between 5% and 15% (IDEAM 2010).

A study that evaluated the eco-physiological plasticity of A. aegypti and A. albopictus permitted knowing that the principal barrier to the hatching of A. aegypti eggs is low temperatures, however, populations found at low altitudes can adapt to low temperatures (Kramer et al. 2021). Moreover, A. albopictus has greater success in its distribution due to the characteristics of its place of origin, ecological plasticity, and egg-hatching capacity (Diniz et al. 2017; Kramer et al. 2021). For A. aegypti, non-suitable zones were obtained in the Amazonía and in the archipelago of San Andrés y Providencia, which may be because the climatic conditions in these zonas are different in their native area. For example, the Amazonía has annual precipitations ranging between 3,000 and 4,500 mm, besides, the archipelago is characterized for having tropical storms during the rainy season (IDEAM 2010).

Passive transport plays an important role in the spread of mosquitos at large geographic scales, where naturally these species could not arrive (Lounibos 2002; Lwande et al. 2020; Wilke et al. 2022). Colombia has several important seaports that handle a wide variety of cargo to the interior and exterior of the country (Cantillo et al. 2018). These, along with primary land transportation routes, connect the different geographic areas throughout the country and can provide an entry and exit route of vectors to new locations (Eritja et al. 2017; Bennett et al. 2019) complicating the epidemiological picture in public health. For example, a study evidenced the presence of A. aegypti and A. albopictus in an important Colombian seaport, which led to the first registry of A. albopictus in western Colombia (Suárez 2001). Additionally, a mathematical modeling study by our group suggests that passive transport mediated by freight trucks would play an important role in the dispersal of A. aegypti and the potential capacity to transmit the Mayaro virus on a Colombian scale (Valencia-Marín et al. 2020).

The three-dimensional graph estimates the niche overlap between A. aegypti and A. albopictus in Colombia, indicating the possible coexistence between both species. This coexistence between both mosquitos may take place through habitat segregation, inasmuch as studies have shown the prevalence of A. aegypti in urban zones and of A. albopictus in rural zones, permitting coexistence in sub-urban zones (Braks et al. 2003; Hopperstad et al. 2021). Until now, no studies have been conducted on the coexistence between these species in Colombia, although the presence of A. aegypti and A. albopictus has been reported in the same location (Ortiz-Canamejoy and Villota 2018; Camacho-Gómez and Zuleta 2019; Gómez-Vargas and Zapata-Úsuga 2019). However, the fact that these species are found sharing the same habitat can lead to competitive displacement between species, which influences on their distribution and establishment (Rey and Lounibos 2015). In this case, displacement of one of the mosquitos may play an important role in its geographic distribution, given that previous studies have evidenced the disappearance or decrease of A. aegypti populations after the appearance of A. albopictus (O’Meara et al. 1995; Kaplan et al. 2010; Bagny et al. 2012). Nevertheless, competence studies are suggested to corroborate or not our hypothesis regarding the coexistence of both species in Colombia.

In conclusion, currently, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are widely distributed in Colombia in altitudes between 0 and 3,000 m with an occupied area > 70%, which would mean a population at risk of nearly 40 million Colombians. In the future, increasing temperatures could allow these mosquito species to spread to higher altitudes than they currently inhabit, allowing their expansion to unsettled areas. For now, it is estimated that the distribution of these mosquitos will be affected by the influence of climate change, remaining stable mainly in the western region de Colombia. The foregoing permits knowing the zones in which these vectors could potentially inhabit, permitting to focus locations in vector control programs. Similarly, it is suggested that given the broad potential distribution for A. albopictus, it would have the potential of playing an important role as secondary vector of the same arbovirus for which A. aegypti is a vector. Notwithstanding, future studies are suggested to corroborate this hypothesis.

Communications and declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Universidad del Quindío for funding Project 1045 and covering the cost of the manuscript’s translation into English.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare having no conflict of interests.

Authors’ contributions

All the authors contributed to the study conception and design. Estefania Mejía-Jurado and Emmanuel Echeverry-Cárdenas prepared the material, collected the data, and contributed with analyses. The manuscript was written by Estefania Mejía-Jurado, Emmanuel Echeverry-Cárdenas, and Oscar Alexander Aguirre-Obando. All the authors read and approved the final draft of the manuscript.

Abílio AP, Abudasse G, Kampango A et al (2018) Distribution and breeding sites of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in 32 urban/peri-urban districts of Mozambique: implication for assessing the risk of arbovirus outbreaks. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006692
Aguirre-Obando OA, Dalla Bona AC, Duque LJE, Navarro-Silva MA (2015) Insecticide resistance and genetic variability in natural populations of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) from Colombia. Zoologia 32:14–22. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702015000100003
Alencar J, Mello CF, De, Marcondes CB et al (2021) Natural Infection and Vertical Transmission of Zika Virus in Sylvatic Mosquitoes Aedes albopictus and Haemagogus leucocelaenus from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Trop Med Infect Dis 6:1–10
Altamiranda-Saavedra M, Arboleda S, Parra JL et al (2017) Potential distribution of mosquito vector species in a primary malaria endemic region of Colombia. PLoS ONE 12:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179093
Ardila-Roldán S, Santacoloma L, Brochero H (2013) Estado de la sensibilidad a los insecticidas de uso en salud pública en poblaciones naturales de Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) del departamento de Casanare. Colombia Biomédica 33:446–458. https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v33i3.1534
Bagny L, Arnoux S, Delatte H et al (2012) Spread of invasive Aedes albopictus and decline of resident Aedes aegypti in urban areas of Mayotte 2007–2010. Biol Invasions 14:1623–1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0177-1
Barve N, Barve V, Jiménez-Valverde A et al (2011) The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol Modell 222:1810–1819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.011
Bennett KL, Gómez Martínez C, Almanza A et al (2019) High infestation of invasive Aedes mosquitoes in used tires along the local transport network of Panama. Parasites and Vectors 12:264. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3522-8
Bonizzoni M, Gasperi G, Chen X, James AA (2013) The invasive mosquito species Aedes albopictus: Current knowledge and future perspectives. Trends Parasitol 29:460–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2013.07.003
Braks MAH, Honório NA, Lourenço-De-Oliveira R et al (2003) Convergent Habitat Segregation of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Southeastern Brazil and Florida. J Med Entomol 40:785–794. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-40.6.785
Cabezas L, Cabanzo W, Santa F et al (2017) Distribución espacial del mosquito Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) en el área rural de dos municipios de Cundinamarca. Colombia Biomédica 37:1–30
Caldera SM, Jaramillo MC, Cochero S et al (2013) Diferencias genéticas entre poblaciones de Aedes aegypti de municipios del norte de Colombia, con baja y alta incidencia de dengue. Biomédica 33:89–98. https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v33i0.1573
Camacho-Gómez M, Zuleta LP (2019) Primer reporte de Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse) en la Orinoquia colombiana. Biomédica 39:785–797
Camargo C, Alfonso-Parra C, Díaz S et al (2021) Spatial and temporal population dynamics of male and female Aedes albopictus at a local scale in Medellín, Colombia. Parasites and Vectors 14:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-04806-2
Caminade C, McIntyre KM, Jones AE (2019) Impact of recent and future climate change on vector-borne diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1436:157–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13950
Cantillo J, Cantillo V, Arellana J (2018) Modelling with joint choice of ports and countries of origin and destination: application to Colombian ports. Marit Policy Manag 45:720–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1440090
Carvajal JJ, Honorio NA, Díaz SP et al (2016) Detección de Aedes albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae) en el municipio de Istmina, Chocó, Colombia. Biomédica 36:438–446
Conde M, Orjuela LI, Castellanos CA et al (2015) Evaluación de la sensibilidad a insecticidas en poblaciones de Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) del departamento de Caldas, Colombia, en 2007 y 2011. Biomédica 35:43–52. https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v35i1.2367
Correa-Morales F, González-Acosta C, Mejía-Zúñiga D et al (2019) Surveillance for Zika in Mexico: naturally infected mosquitoes in urban and semi-urban areas. Pathog Glob Health 113:309–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2019.1706291
Costa-da-Silva AL, Ioshino RS, Petersen V et al (2017) First report of naturally infected Aedes aegypti with chikungunya virus genotype ECSA in the Americas. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005630
Costa EAP, de Santos A, de Correia EM, de Albuquerque JC CMR (2010) Impact of small variations in temperature and humidity on the reproductive activity and survival of Aedes aegypti (Diptera, Culicidae). Rev Bras Entomol 54:488–493. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0085-56262010000300021
Cuéllar-Jiménez ME, Velásquez-Escobar OL, González-Obando R, Morales-Reichmann CA (2007) Detección de Aedes albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae) en la ciudad de Cali, Valle del Cauca. Colombia Biomédica 27:273–279. https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v27i2.224
Cuervo PF, Artigas P, Lorenzo-morales J, Mas-coma S (2023) Ecological Niche Modelling Approaches: Challenges and Applications in Vector-Borne Diseases. Trop Med Infect Dis 8:187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed8040187
da Cruz Ferreira DA, Degener CM, De Almeida Marques-Toledo C et al (2017) Meteorological variables and mosquito monitoring are good predictors for infestation trends of Aedes aegypti, the vector of dengue, chikungunya and Zika. Parasites and Vectors 10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2025-8
Dalpadado R, Amarasinghe D, Gunathilaka N, Ariyarathna N (2022) Bionomic aspects of dengue vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus at domestic settings in urban, suburban and rural areas in Gampaha District, Western Province of Sri Lanka. Parasites and Vectors 15:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05261-3
De Figueiredo ML, De C, Gomes A, Amarilla AA et al (2010) Mosquitoes infected with dengue viruses in Brazil. Virol J 7:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-7-152
Delatte H, Dehecq JS, Thiria J et al (2008) Geographic distribution and developmental sites of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) during a Chikungunya epidemic event. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis 8:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2007.0649
Dhimal M, Gautam I, Joshi HD et al (2015) Risk Factors for the Presence of Chikungunya and Dengue Vectors (Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus), Their Altitudinal Distribution and Climatic Determinants of Their Abundance in Central Nepal. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9:e0003545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003545
Diniz DFA, De Albuquerque CMR, Oliva LO et al (2017) Diapause and quiescence: Dormancy mechanisms that contribute to the geographical expansion of mosquitoes and their evolutionary success. Parasites and Vectors 10:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2235-0
Djiappi-Tchamen B, Nana-Ndjangwo MS, Tchuinkam T et al (2021) Aedes mosquito distribution along a transect from rural to urban settings in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Insects 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090819
Ducheyne E, Tran Minh NN, Haddad N et al (2018) Current and future distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region. Int J Health Geogr 17:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-018-0125-0
Echeverry-Cárdenas E, López-Castañeda C, Carvajal-Castro JD, Aguirre-Obando OA (2021) Potential geographic distribution of the Tiger Mosquito Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894) (Diptera: Culicidae) in current and future conditions for Colombia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 15:e0008212. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.13.990440
Eritja R, Palmer JRB, Roiz D et al (2017) Direct evidence of adult Aedes albopictus dispersal by car. Sci Rep 7:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12652-5
Eskildsen GA, Rovira JR, Smith O et al (2018) Maternal invasion history of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus into the Isthmus of Panama: Implications for the control of emergent viral disease agents. PLoS ONE 13:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194874
Estallo EL, Sangermano F, Grech M et al (2018) Modelling the distribution of the vector Aedes aegypti in a central Argentine city. Med Vet Entomol 32:451–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12323
Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl GA et al (2016) Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev 9:1937–1958. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016
Ezeakacha NF, Yee DA (2019) The role of temperature in affecting carry-over effects and larval competition in the globally invasive mosquito Aedes albopictus. Parasites and Vectors 12:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3391-1
Fatima HS, Atif S, Rasheed BS et al (2016) Species Distribution Modelling of Aedes aegypti in two dengue-endemic regions of Pakistan. Trop Med Int Heal 21:427–436. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/tmi.12664
Ferede G, Tiruneh M, Abate E et al (2018) Distribution and larval breeding habitats of Aedes mosquito species in residential areas of northwest Ethiopia. Epidemiol Health 40:e2018015. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2018015
Ferreira-de-Brito A, Ribeiro IP, de Miranda RM et al (2016) First detection of natural infection of Aedes aegypti with Zika virus in Brazil and throughout South America. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 111:655–658. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760160332
Fischer D, Thomas SM, Neteler M et al (2014) Climatic suitability of Aedes albopictus in europe referring to climate change projections: Comparison of mechanistic and correlative niche modelling approaches. Eurosurveillance 19:1–13. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2014.19.6.20696
Garcia-Rejon JE, Navarro JC, Cigarroa-Toledo N, Baak-Baak CM (2021) An updated review of the invasive Aedes albopictus in the americas; geographical distribution, host feeding patterns, arbovirus infection, and the potential for vertical transmission of dengue virus. Insects 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12110967
Getachew D, Tekie H, Gebre-Michael T et al (2015) Breeding sites of Aedes aegypti: Potential dengue vectors in dire Dawa, east Ethiopia. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis 2015:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/706276
Gómez-Palacio A, Suaza-Vasco J, Castaño S et al (2017) Infección de Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894) con el genotipo asiático-americano del virus del dengue serotipo 2 en Medellín y su posible papel como vector del dengue en Colombia. Biomédica 37:135–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v34i2.3474
Gómez-Vargas W, Zapata-Úsuga G (2019) Presence of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in the rural area of the department of Santander. Colombia Biosalud 18:7–21. https://doi.org/10.17151/biosa.2019.18.1.1
Gómez J, Núñez–Tello A, Mateus–Zabala D et al (2020) Physiographic and geological setting of the Colombian territory. In: Gómez J, Mateus–Zabala D (eds) The Geology of Colombia, Volume 1 Proterozoic – Paleozoic. Servicio Geológico Colombiano, Publicaciones Geológicas Especiales 35, Bogotá, pp 1–16
Gratz NG (2004) Critical review of the vector status of Aedes albopictus. Med Vet Entomol 18:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-283X.2004.00513.x
Gutiérrez M, Almeida O, Barrios H et al (2011) Hallazgo de Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) en el municipio de Barrancabermeja. Colombia Biomédica 31:26–26
Hopperstad KA, Sallam MF, Reiskind MH (2021) Estimations of fine-scale species distributions of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Eastern Florida. J Med Entomol 58:699–707. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaa216
IDEAM (2010) Atlas climatológico de Colombia. http://atlas.ideam.gov.co/cclimatologicas/index.html. Acessed 25 march 2023
Ibáñez-Bernal S, Briseño B, Mutebi JP et al (1997) First record in America of Aedes albopictus naturally infected with dengue virus during the 1995 outbreak at Reynosa, Mexico. Med Vet Entomol 11:305–309
Jarvis A, Lane A, Hijmans RJ (2008) The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.013
Kalan K, Ivović V, Glasnović P, Buzan E (2017) Presence and Potential Distribution of Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Slovenia. J Med Entomol 54:1510–1518. https://doi.org/10.1093/JME/TJX150
Kamal M, Kenawy MA, Rady MH et al (2018) Mapping the global potential distributions of two arboviral vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus under changing climate. PLoS One 13:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210122
Kaplan L, Kendell D, Robertson D et al (2010) Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Bermuda: Extinction, invasion, invasion and extinction. Biol Invasions 12:3277–3288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9721-z
Kraemer MUG, Reiner RC, Brady OJ et al (2019) Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Nat Microbiol 4:854–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0376-y
Kraemer MUG, Sinka ME, Duda KA et al (2015) The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Elife 4:e08347. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08347
Kramer IM, Pfeiffer M, Steffens O et al (2021) The ecophysiological plasticity of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus concerning overwintering in cooler ecoregions is driven by local climate and acclimation capacity. Sci Total Environ 778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146128
Laporta GZ, Potter AM, Oliveira JFA et al (2023) Global Distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in a Climate Change Scenario of Regional Rivalry. Insects 14:49. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010049
Lee IH, Duvall LB (2022) Maternally Instigated Diapause in Aedes albopictus: Coordinating Experience and Internal State for Survival in Variable Environments. Front Behav Neurosci 16:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.778264
Liria J, Navarro J (2010) Modelo de nicho ecológico en Haemagogus williston (Diptera: Culicidae), vectores del virus de la fiebre amarilla. Rev Biomed 21:149–161
Liu-Helmersson J, Brännström Ã, Sewe MO et al (2019) Estimating past, present, and future trends in the global distribution and abundance of the arbovirus vector Aedes aegypti under climate change scenarios. Front Public Heal 7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00148
Liu B, Gao X, Ma J et al (2019) Modeling the present and future distribution of arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus under climate change scenarios in Mainland China. Sci Total Environ 664:203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.301
López-Latorre MA, Neira M (2016) Influencia del cambio climático en la biología de Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquito transmisor de arbovirosis humanas. Rev Ecuat Med Cienc Biol 37:11–21
Lounibos LP (2002) Invasive insect vectors of human disease. Annu Rev Entomol 47:233–266
Lubinda J, Treviño CJA, Walsh MR et al (2019) Environmental suitability for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus and the spatial distribution of major arboviral infections in Mexico. Parasite Epidemiol Control 6:e00116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parepi.2019.e00116
Lwande OW, Obanda V, Lindström A et al (2020) Globe-Trotting Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: Risk Factors for Arbovirus Pandemics. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis 20:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2019.2486
Marinho RA, Beserra EB, Bezerra-Gusmão MA et al (2016) Effects of temperature on the life cycle, expansion, and dispersion of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in three cities in Paraiba, Brazil. J Vector Ecol 41:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvec.12187
Musso D, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Levi JE et al (2018) Unexpected outbreaks of arbovirus infections: lessons learned from the Pacific and tropical America. Lancet Infect Dis 18:e355–e361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30269-X
Mweya CN, Kimera SI, Kija JB, Mboera LEG (2013) Predicting distribution of Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens complex, potential vectors of Rift Valley fever virus in relation to disease epidemics in East Africa. Infect Ecol Epidemiol 3:21748. https://doi.org/10.3402/iee.v3i0.21748
Neteler M, Roiz D, Rocchini D et al (2011) Terra and Aqua satellites track tiger mosquito invasion: Modelling the potential distribution of Aedes albopictus in north-eastern Italy. Int J Health Geogr 10:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-10-49
O’Meara GF, Evans Leonard FJ, Gettman AD, Cuda JP (1995) Spread of Aedes albopictus and decline of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J Med Entomol 32:554–562
O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL et al (2017) The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob Environ Chang 42:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004
Oliveira S, Rocha J, Sousa CA, Capinha C (2021) Wide and increasing suitability for Aedes albopictus in Europe is congruent across distribution models. Sci Rep 11:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89096-5
Ortiz-Canamejoy K, Villota AC (2018) Primera evidencia de Aedes albopictus en el departamento del Putumayo, Colombia. MedUNAB 21:10–15. https://doi.org/10.29375/01237047.3416
Paupy C, Delatte H, Bagny L et al (2009) Aedes albopictus, an arbovirus vector: From the darkness to the light. Microbes Infect 11:1177–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2009.05.005
Pérez-Castro R, Castellanos JE, Olano VA et al (2016) Detection of all four dengue serotypes in Aedes aegypti female mosquitoes collected in a rural area in Colombia. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 111:233–240. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760150363
Peterson AT, Soberón J, Pearson RG et al (2011) Ecological niches and geographic distributions. Princeton university press
Portilla Cabrera CV, Selvaraj JJ (2020) Geographic shifts in the bioclimatic suitability for Aedes aegypti under climate change scenarios in Colombia. Heliyon 6:e03101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03101
Poveda-M IC, Rojas-P, CA (2004) Rudas-ll A, Rangel-ch. El chocó biogeográfico. ambiente físico
Qiao H, Peterson AT, Campbell LP et al (2016) NicheA: creating virtual species and ecological niches in multivariate environmental scenarios. Ecography (Cop) 39:805–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01961
Rangel-ch JO, Arellano-P H (2017) Clima del chocó. biogeográfico/costa pacífica de colombia
Rao B (2010) Larval habitats of Aedes albopictus (Skuse) in rural areas of Calicut, Kerala, India. J Vector Borne Dis 47:175–177
Reinhold JM, Lazzari CR, Lahondère C (2018) Effects of the environmental temperature on Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes: A review. Insects 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9040158
Rey JR, Lounibos P (2015) Ecología de Aedes aegypti y Aedes albopictus en América y transmisión enfermedades. Biomédica 35:177–185. https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v35i2.2514
Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E et al (2017) The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob Environ Chang 42:153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009
Ricas HR, Malta CR, Morales I et al (2020) First report of Aedes albopictus infected by Dengue and Zika virus in a rural outbreak in Brazil. PLoS ONE 15:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229847
Rúa-Uribe G, Suárez Acosta C, Londoño V et al (2011) Primera evidencia de Aedes albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae) en la ciudad de Medellín, Antioquia - Colombia. Rev Salud Pública Medellín 5:89–98
Ruiz-López F, González-Mazo A, Vélez-Mira A et al (2016) Presencia de Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) y su infección natural con el virus del dengue en alturas no registradas para Colombia. Biomédica 36:303–308. https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v36i2.3301
Sanchez-Rodriguez OS, Sanchez-Casas RM, Laguna-Aguilar M et al (2014) Natural Transmission of Dengue Virus by Aedes albopictus at Monterrey, Northeastern Mexico. Southwest Entomol 39:459–468. https://doi.org/10.3958/059.039.0307
Sánchez C, Posada ML (2022) Impacto del cambio climático en los vectores Aedes aegypti y Aedes albopictus y su importancia en su distribución geográfica en Colombia. Biociencias 6:49–68
Soberón J, Peterson AT (2005) Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodivers Inf 2:1–10
Souza-Neto JA, Powell JR, Bonizzoni M (2019) Aedes aegypti vector competence studies: A review. Infect Genet Evol 67:191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.009
Suárez M (2001) Aedes albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera, Culicidae) en Buenaventura, Colombia. Inf Quinc Epidemiológico Nac 6:221–236
Tabachnick WJ (2016) Ecological effects on arbovirus-mosquito cycles of transmission. Curr Opin Virol 21:124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2016.09.008
Thomas SM, Obermayr U, Fischer D et al (2012) Low-temperature threshold for egg survival of a post-diapause and non-diapause European aedine strain, Aedes albopictus. Parasites and Vectors 5:1–7. Diptera: Culicidaehttps://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-100
Urdaneta-Marquez L, Failloux AB (2011) Population genetic structure of Aedes aegypti, the principal vector of dengue viruses. Infect Genet Evol 11:253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2010.11.020
Uusitalo R, Siljander M, Culverwell CL et al (2019) Predictive mapping of mosquito distribution based on environmental and anthropogenic factors in Taita Hills, Kenya. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 76:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2018.11.004
Valencia-Marín BS, Gandica ID, Aguirre-Obando OA (2020) The Mayaro virus and its potential epidemiological consequences in Colombia: An exploratory biomathematics analysis. Parasites and Vectors 13:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04354-1
Vega-Rúa A, Zouache K, Girod R et al (2014) High Level of Vector Competence of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from Ten American Countries as a Crucial Factor in the Spread of Chikungunya Virus. J Virol 88:6294–6306. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00370-14
Vélez ID, Quiñones ML, Suárez M et al (1998) Presencia de Aedes albopictus en Leticia. Amazonas Colombia Biomédica 18:192. https://doi.org/10.7705/Biomédica.v18i3.990
Wilke ABB, Vasquez C, Carvajal A et al (2022) Mosquito surveillance in maritime entry ports in Miami-Dade County, Florida to increase preparedness and allow the early detection of invasive mosquito species. PLoS ONE 17:e0267224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267224
Zamora J, Castaño JC, Hoyos R (2015) Primer registro de Aedes albopictus, vector de los virus del dengue y chicunguña en la Tebaida. Quindio Biomédica 35:114–115

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
04 Jun, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
28 May, 2023
Editor invited by journal
16 May, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
03 May, 2023
First submitted to journal
02 May, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Potential current and future distribution for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Colombia: important disease vectors

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Study area

Records of occurrence

Environmental variables

Ecological niche modeling

Validation of the models

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1