Bailee Barrows

Research Paper

Biology 1615

Article: Is Mosquito Larval Source Management Appropriate for Reducing Malaria in Areas of

Extensive Flooding in The Gambia? A Cross-over Intervention Trial.

Abstract: Larviciding to control Malaria around bodies of water being applied at fixed

times. There was no reduction of clinical malaria or anemia reported in the nearby villages of

Gambia.

Introduction: Control measures that are being used in sub-Saharan Africa are sprays and bed

nets that are helping keep down the infestation and infection of mosquitoes. New Interests of

management have come up because of the resistance that the mosquitoes have for the

previous used methods of prevention. The new interest of intervention is called larval source

management.

Methods: There were four zones that were part of the study. The four zones represent a

separate section of land that measures to 12x8 km in area and are divided by three 4km wide

bands. The bands go in a perpendicular direction to the Gambia River. The purpose of the bands

that separate each zone are to give enough land in between each of the four zones so that the

experiment being done in zone x will not affect the results in zone y or zone z. Larvicide was

applied to two out of the four zones and the other two zones were the controlled group. After
so many months passed by the two zones in the control position would switch places with the

other two zones in the experimented position. Children were selected in random large

numbers and vary in age from 6 months to 10 years. If a child turned 10 years old, then an

infant of 6-18 months would replace that child’s place in the experiment.

Larval Vector Abundance: After the application of the larvicide to the selected zones,

researchers visited each habitat monthly to assess their findings and any kinds of results.

Samples of mosquitoes were gathered from CDC traps that were set up in participants

bedrooms from a certain time to another. Data was recorded and examined under a

microscope. During the intervention years checks were made to measure the proportions

contacting early and late larvae to determine how affective the larvacide applications really are.

Blinding: The data that was collected was not blinded to the assignment of mosquito larval

control in the areas of study. However, field applicators were blinded to the sites that were

chosen for larval surveys. All residents of the tested areas were very aware of the research that

was going on.

Results: All children were surveyed from each zone at the end of the intervention period. 84.9%

were surveyed in 2006 and 90.7% were surveyed in 2007.

Zone 1: Larvae count and humans affected were low and remained to stay low throughout the

intervention years.

Zone 2: Larvae count and humans affected were high at first and then decreased during the

experiment during the intervention years.

Zone 3: Larvae count and humans affected were dramatically higher than zones 1&2. Count was

high at first and remained high in the intervention years with very slight decrease.

Zone 4: Larvae count and humans affected were pretty low and consistent with the first zone

with one small spike of larvae increase, but immediately dropped back down and remained low

during the intervention years.

Why did scientists do this research or what were they trying to determine?

They wanted to determine if the new control method of the spread of malaria would be

reduced in affect and if larval numbers were reduced.

What did they predict would happen?

The predicted that each zone would be effected differently and that the larvicide would reduce

malaria and larval numbers in the flooded areas of Gambia.

What experiments did they do?

They got a large group of people from the separate zones they established and used larvicide

application at fixed times to see how that area of land and people were affected.

What did the results mean?

The results meant that the larvicide was helpful but it was only a temporary fix and nothing

permanent would have resulted from the experiment because the results already revealed that

the numbers were not reduced very much and weren’t consistent so there was no reason for

them to believe it made a long lasting difference.