| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kraemer, MUG, et al.
(author)
-
Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus
- 2019
-
In: Nature microbiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2058-5276. ; 4:5, s. 854-863
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The global population at risk from mosquito-borne diseases—including dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya and Zika—is expanding in concert with changes in the distribution of two key vectors: Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. The distribution of these species is largely driven by both human movement and the presence of suitable climate. Using statistical mapping techniques, we show that human movement patterns explain the spread of both species in Europe and the United States following their introduction. We find that the spread of Ae. aegypti is characterized by long distance importations, while Ae. albopictus has expanded more along the fringes of its distribution. We describe these processes and predict the future distributions of both species in response to accelerating urbanization, connectivity and climate change. Global surveillance and control efforts that aim to mitigate the spread of chikungunya, dengue, yellow fever and Zika viruses must consider the so far unabated spread of these mosquitos. Our maps and predictions offer an opportunity to strategically target surveillance and control programmes and thereby augment efforts to reduce arbovirus burden in human populations globally.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kraemer, MUG, et al.
(author)
-
Publisher Correction: Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus
- 2019
-
In: Nature microbiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2058-5276. ; 4:5, s. 900-900
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In the version of this Article originally published, the affiliation for author Catherine Linard was incorrectly stated as ‘6Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK’. The correct affiliation is ‘9Spatial Epidemiology Lab (SpELL), Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium’. The affiliation for author Hongjie Yu was also incorrectly stated as ‘11Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA’. The correct affiliation is ‘15School of Health, Fudan University, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China’. This has now been amended in all versions of the Article.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Keune, H., et al.
(author)
-
Science-policy challenges for biodiversity, public health and urbanization : examples from Belgium
- 2013
-
In: Environmental Research Letters. - : IOP Publishing. - 1748-9326. ; 8:2, s. 025015-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Internationally, the importance of a coordinated effort to protect both biodiversity and public health is more and more recognized. These issues are often concentrated or particularly challenging in urban areas, and therefore on-going urbanization worldwide raises particular issues both for the conservation of living natural resources and for population health strategies. These challenges include significant difficulties associated with sustainable management of urban ecosystems, urban development planning, social cohesion and public health. An important element of the challenge is the need to interface between different forms of knowledge and different actors from science and policy. We illustrate this with examples from Belgium, showcasing concrete cases of human-nature interaction. To better tackle these challenges, since 2011, actors in science, policy and the broader Belgian society have launched a number of initiatives to deal in a more integrated manner with combined biodiversity and public health challenges in the face of ongoing urbanization. This emerging community of practice in Belgium exemplifies the importance of interfacing at different levels. (1) Bridges must be built between science and the complex biodiversity/ecosystem-human/public health-urbanization phenomena. (2) Bridges between different professional communities and disciplines are urgently needed. (3) Closer collaboration between science and policy, and between science and societal practice is needed. Moreover, within each of these communities closer collaboration between specialized sections is needed.
|
|
