Previous epizootics of RVF in Kenya have been correlated with the flooding of
dambos after unusually heavy and persistent rainfall.
20,23 Such flooding then leads to the hatching of immense numbers of floodwater
Aedes species, which are considered to be the reservoirs of the virus.
41 Colonization of the flooded sites by
Culex,
Anopheles,
Mansonia, and other genera, are thought to contribute to further virus transmission and spread. Based on remotely-sensed rainfall and sea surface temperature anomalies, and on reports of extensive flooding in North Eastern Kenya, mosquito surveillance was initiated in Garissa District in mid December 2006. Laboratory confirmation of RVF affecting humans and livestock in Garissa in December was followed by case confirmation in seven other Kenyan districts (and in Somalia and Tanzania) over the ensuing four months. Entomologic investigations were carried out in four of the RVF-affected districts in Kenya, and RVFV was detected in 77 mosquito pools encompassing 10 mosquito species from three of the four districts. This report represents the first comprehensive entomologic investigation to be carried out during a RVF epidemic in Kenya.
The RVFV was detected in multiple pools of
Ae. mcintoshi/circumluteolus and
Ae. ochraceus collected in Garissa by RT-PCR and additionally by virus isolation from some of the RT-PCR negative pools. This, coupled with their high abundance in the area during the outbreak, suggests that these species may have played an important role in the epidemic/epizootic transmission of RVFV during this outbreak, and may have also contributed to the transmission of this virus during the 1997–1998 outbreak of RVF in Garissa. Identification of infected
Ae. ochraceus in Garissa represents a new RVFV-vector association in East Africa. It is noteworthy that although
Ae. ochraceus is a known vector of RVFV in West Africa, along with
Ae. vexans arabiensis and
Ae. dalzieli.
Aedes vexans arabiensis it is also a vector of RVFV in Saudi Arabia
14,42–45 and although the species has not been documented in Kenya, it has been found in neighboring Somalia and Sudan.
33,46
Aedes mcintoshi/circumluteolus are members of the
Neomelaniconion subgenus while
mcintoshi was originally identified as
lineatopennis by Edwards
33 and both were later speciated by Huang
47 and documented as reservoir and vector of RVFV in Kenya.
20 In Kenya, RVFV was previously detected in
Ae. mcintoshi reared from field-collected larvae.
20 However, because little is known about the ability of
Ae. ochraceus to transovarially transmit RVFV, investigations on the role of this species in the maintenance of the virus between epidemics in Garissa are critically important. Other members of the subgenera
Neomelaniconion and
Aedimorphus that have previously been found infected with RVFV, such as
Ae. circumluteolus,
Ae. dentatus, and
Ae. cumminsi20 should likewise be assessed for transovarial transmission of RVFV as a mechanism for virus maintenance between epidemics.
The detection of RVFV from two pools of
An. squamosus from Garissa adds to the list of species that are potentially involved in the transmission of RVFV in Kenya, especially because this species is widespread in Africa. Because
An. squamosus uses a large variety of larval habitats, including standing pools of water, sluggish streams, and rice fields,
48 and is known to feed on livestock and humans, its status as a RVFV vector deserves further evaluation.
Dissection of mosquitoes to determine parity for four mosquito species from Garissa revealed that the highest parity rates were associated with
Ae. mcintoshi/circumluteolus and
Ae. ochraceus (71–95% and 96–100%, respectively); the parity rates for
Cx. poicilipes and
An. squamosus were substantially lower. This pattern is consistent with previous studies in Kenya showing that when dambos are flooded after heavy rains, the first species to emerge are floodwater
Aedes, including
Ae. mcintoshi/circumluteolus caused by hatching of eggs deposited during previous flooding cycles.
49,50
Culex and
Anopheles larvae appear later, as gravid females use the newly-flooded sites for oviposition . Thus, the lower parity rates observed in
Cx. poicilipes and
An. squamosus may be caused by a later appearance of these species at the flooded sites. Studies of mosquito species succession in irrigated rice fields in East and West Africa have shown that
Cx. poicilipes was most commonly found 6 or more weeks after flooding of the fields,
51,52 and that adult abundance remained high for an extended period.
51 Information on
An. squamosus larval development and adult emergence is sparse. Although the IR for
Ae. mcintoshi/circumluteolus and
Ae. ochraceus were slightly higher than that determined for
An. squamosus and
Cx. poicilipes, the overlapping confidence intervals renders these differences non-significant.
In Baringo,
Ma. africana and
Ma. uniformis were collected in abundance. These species are known to breed around flooded areas or around the edges of water bodies containing emergent vegetation, and to feed predominantly on livestock. The RVFV was previously isolated from
Ma. africana during the 1989 RVF outbreak in Naivasha, Kenya, Uganda, and the Central African Republic.
53,54 The detection of RVFV from multiple pools of
Ma. uniformis in this survey and additional isolation from two RT-PCR negative pools by cell culture provided the first evidence that this species may have a role in RVF epizootic tranmsission in Kenya. This too calls for further experimental evaluation of the vectorial capacity of the species.
The RVFV was also detected in pools of
Cx. pipiens and
Cx. univittatus collected in Baringo.
Culex pipiens was previously implicated as a vector during the RVF epidemic that occurred in Egypt in 1977
3 and a number of vector competence studies have also showed the efficiency of this and other
Culex species to act as a vector for RVFV.
16 Even though
Cx. univittatus has not previously been found infected with RVFV, it is a known vector for West Nile virus in Africa,
55 belongs to a complex composed of several species one of which,
Cx. perexiguus, has been found through experimental studies to efficiently vector RVFV.
19,46 This observation calls for vector competence evaluation of this species as well.
In response to human cases of RVF in Kilifi, traps were set around homes and near the costal mangrove swamps.
Culex poicilipes,
Cx. bitaeniorhynchus, and
Ae. pembaensis were the most abundantly collected species, and yielded three, three, and one RVFV isolates, respectively.
Aedes pembaensis is not known to be a vector of RVF and has never been associated with the virus in nature.
Aedes pembaensis breeds along the seashore in association with crabs that live in the mangrove swamps. Female
Ae. pembaensis mosquitoes lay their eggs on the crabs and the larvae develop in saline pools near the shore. Lumbo virus (a member of the California serogroup) is the only documented virus that has been isolated from this species.
56 In comparison, high IR of 6.92 for
Cx. bitaeniorhynchus and the relatively high IR of 1.28 for
Cx. Poicilipes was recorded. Previous field collections of
Cx. poicilipes in Mauritania after the 1998 RVF outbreak showed that this species was naturally infected with RVFV, whereas there is no documented association of
Cx. bitaeniorhynchus with RVFV. There was no cell culture virus isolation obtained from the RT-PCR negative samples of these species. These high IRs would justify initiation of vector competence studies to evaluate the role of these species in RVFV transmission.
More human cases of RVF were reported from Garissa and Baringo than from the other nine affected districts. Although previous RVF epizootics have been associated with periods of excessive seasonal rainfall, it has been suggested that RVF primarily affects inhabitants of the dry lands of the Rift Valley and the outlying semiarid and arid grazing lands, to include the Garissa and Baringo districts.
57 These districts are home to predominantly pastoral communities and about two-thirds of the RVFV positive pools were from mosquitoes collected in Garissa, and all except two of these were from floodwater
Aedes species. The flood plains in northeastern Kenya provided an ideal habitat for the tremendous blooms of floodwater
Aedes, which presumably initiate the RVF outbreak. With several years elapsing between major flooding events, the immunologically naïve and unvaccinated livestock populations
6 would presumably have developed high-titered viremias after being bitten by an infected floodwater mosquito. Those infected animals could then infect secondary and inefficient mosquito vectors that could then sustain and contribute to the spread of the virus to more livestock and humans.
58 Sheltering in close proximity to livestock during epizootics has also been previously observed as one predisposing factor relating to RVFV infections in humans.
11 About 24% of the RVFV positive mosquito pools were obtained from Baringo, and were mostly
Mansonia species, which are known to feed preferentially on livestock and humans. The large herds maintained in Garissa and Baringo may have provided abundant blood meal sources for the initial floodwater
Aedes mosquitoes, thus setting up a situation for transmission between the livestock and the
Aedes and
Mansonia species mosquitoes, and subsequent high human exposure. A similar situation may have existed in the other districts, except that different mosquitoes species may have been involved. The infection rates for
Ae. ochraceus and
Ae. mcintoshi/circumluteolus recorded in El-Humow (1.94 and 1.96, respectively) and Kurabull (2.5 and 2.19, respectively), Garissa district, indicate that the level of infected vectors present where the humans and livestock lived in close proximity would have contributed to an increased risk for human infection by RVFV. It was anticipated that exclusion of blood fed mosquito specimens during sample screening would reduced the chance of detecting virus contained in host blood.
In Kirinyaga, unlike the other sites, mosquito numbers were much lower (27 mosquitoes per trap per night) () and less than 1% of the collected mosquitoes consisted of flood water
Aedes species.
Culex quinquefasciatus, a known vector of RVFV, was the most abundantly collected mosquito, followed by
Cx. annulioris, a mosquito species linked to RVFV transmission in Madagascar.
58 Although RVF was reported in the Kirinyaga area during this outbreak, RVFV was not detected in any of the mosquitoes collected from that area; an observation attributable partly to the timing of vector collection and partly to the prevailing climatic conditions and agricultural practices in the district. Kirinyaga is a humid highland area that is not prone to the extensive flooding such as that seen in Garissa or parts of Baringo, and hence is not suited for the emergence of abundant floodwater
Aedes mosquitoes. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the hatching of floodwater
Aedes in the highland areas occurs more frequently, but at reduced levels, thus allowing for low level enzootic transmission of the virus during the frequent rains.
59 Finally, the susceptible livestock populations in Kinrinyaga were smaller and most may have some level of immunity to RVFV caused by previous enzootic transmission, thus avoiding the explosive outbreaks as those observed in Garissa and Baringo.
Our entomological surveillance during the 2006–2007 outbreak of RVF in Kenya has shown that RVFV transmission occurred in a variety of distinct ecological regions, and that vector species composition and abundance was different for each of these regions. This, and the newly observed RVFV – mosquito associations, underscores the need for further studies to understand the ecological factors that influence the distribution of mosquitoes and to determine the vectorial capacity of these mosquitoes for RVFV in Kenya. The distribution and abundance of floodwater
Aedes that serve as the primary vectors and suspected reservoirs of RVFV in virus emergence zones, together with the secondary vectors that may participate in virus transmission must be mapped out in Kenya and other epidemic prone countries in the region if relevant and effective control measure are to be formulated aimed at combating the spread of this virus. Monitoring of the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events will also help in predicting above normal rainfall in East Africa,
57 and may help relevant authorities to more effectively prioritize and optimize their resources by targeting control efforts at appropriate vector habitats ahead of outbreaks in an effort to minimize livestock and human exposure in the future.