One Health, many approaches: integrated vector management strategies support One Health goals

Abstract

Integrated pest management (IPM) laid the foundation for integrated vector management (IVM) by introducing strategies that prioritize prevention over intervention and the use of diverse management and control tools for arthropod vectors. Both approaches focus on reducing chemical reliance for management of targeted organisms by employing data-driven decisions and incorporating the use of additional non-chemical based management tactics. While IPM and IVM differ in their specific applications and management contexts, many of their fundamental principles remain the same. By diversifying prevention and control options, these management practices support healthier environments, animals, and populace, the three spheres of the One Health paradigm. One Health principles support and highlight the connections between animal, human, and environmental health and how these spheres influence one another. However, the connections and overlapping goals between IVM and One Health are infrequently discussed in tandem. This review will examine the numerous and varied methods of IVM for reducing global disease burden, detail the benefits of using IVM to achieve One Health goals, as well as benefits and considerations to incorporating a One Health lens with IVM.

1 Introduction

While pests and disease have been persistent challenges, cases of emerging and re-emerging diseases in humans, animals, and crops have increased in severity and frequency over the past half-century (1–3). The 20th century ushered in a new era of chemical, pharmaceutical, and technological innovations that reduced pests and increased agricultural output (4), as well as substantially improved public health outcomes with broad-spectrum antimicrobials and antibiotic interventions, insecticides, and sanitation reforms (5, 6). However, the belief that disease could be vanquished was soon recognized as a false prophecy. Nearly as quickly as chemical interventions were invented, resistance was noted (7–9), not only with modern insecticides and pesticides, but with other modern therapeutics such as broad-spectrum antibiotics and antiparasitics as well. Shortly after antibiotics became a cornerstone of modern industrialized agriculture, used both to prevent infections and promote growth rates in livestock, pharmaceutical resistance began to emerge. This resistance was observed in both the treated animals and farmworkers, with a strong correlation between antibiotic-resistant microbes in animals and the subsequent rise in resistance among humans (10, 11). The ongoing rise in pest and pathogen resistance, along with studies supporting the connection between human, animal, and environmental health, paved the way for the One Health concept to gain traction.

1.1 One Health origins

While the term “One Health” was officially coined in the 2000s, the concept itself dates back centuries. Initially termed “One Medicine” by Calvin Schwabe in the late 1800s, this concept was primarily focused on the connections between animal and human health (12). Historical examples, such as the early association of malaria with swampy environments (13), hinted at the critical link between environmental and human health long before mosquitoes were recognized as vectors of disease. In the late 19th to early 20th centuries, the pioneering work of scientists like Sir Ronald Ross and Major Walter Reed established that mosquitoes could transmit disease-causing pathogens to both humans and animals (12, 14), while Theobald Smith and F. L. Kilborne’s research on tick-borne cattle fever laid the foundation for understanding vector-borne zoonotic diseases (15). These studies were fundamental to our current understanding of pathogen transmission, aiding disease mitigation efforts by identifying that live organisms such as mosquitoes and ticks, or vectors, could transmit pathogens. Thus, vector management was developed, with the idea that by controlling the vector, one could control the pathogen and consequently, control disease.

With increasing recognition of the interconnectedness of animal, human, and environmental health, the One Health concept evolved. In the 1990s, the concept gained renewed attention in response to concurrent crises of increasing antibiotic and insecticide resistance and under-investments in public health infrastructure (11, 16, 17). With increased understanding of the importance of healthy ecosystems for healthy populaces, this concept was expanded to include three interconnected spheres (animals, humans, and the environment), and in the early 2000s the term “One Health” gained traction (17). This concept has become an integral framework for a multitude of agencies with extremely varied objectives regionally, nationally, and internationally to promote integrated approaches for addressing animal and zoonotic diseases and public health challenges.

1.2 Modern challenges in vector-borne disease management

Today, around 75% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, with approximately 40% of known zoonotic viruses being vector-borne (18–20). Anthropogenic factors such as urbanization, land-use changes, industrial farming, and climate change have contributed to the increase and spread of vector-borne diseases by altering environments to favor vectors, like mosquitoes and ticks, and by increasing contact between humans and previously wild areas leading to disease emergence and spillover events (3, 21).

Anthropogenic manipulation of the environment has resulted in favorable changes for pest and vector populations to thrive. Increased emissions and accumulations of greenhouse gasses have contributed to environmental changes and an increase in global temperatures (22). These anthropogenic changes have made environments more suitable for pests by extending active seasons and expanding habitat ranges, thus increasing risk of vector-borne pathogen transmission in these areas (23–26). For instance, the number of suitable days in a year for mosquito activity has increased for many cities in the U.S. (27). Additionally, numerous areas in the U.S. have documented new invasive vectors (e.g., Aedes japonicus and Haemaphysalis longicornis) (28, 29) or expanding ranges of vector species (e.g., Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, Amblyomma americanum, and Am. maculatum) (30–32). Compounding these challenges, widespread insecticide use has driven the rise of insecticide resistance in many vector species, further hampering control efforts. For example, large-scale deployment of insecticide-treated bed nets in Mali coincided with an increase in insecticide-resistant hybrid mosquito populations (7, 8). As broad-scale chemical interventions become more common, selective pressures have led to the spread of resistance genes and behavioral adaptations that enable vectors to survive control measures and have even led to the local extinction or extirpation of previously susceptible populations (7, 8). Furthermore, the change in environmental conditions has also included more destructive and frequent weather events (33), which can lead to mosquito-driven public health emergencies requiring rapid response by vector control professionals (34).

The effects and threats from vector-borne diseases are diverse and wide-ranging across local, regional, and global scales. Globally, mosquitoes remain the world’s most “deadly animal” contributing to the morbidity of millions and mortality of hundreds of thousands of people, primarily in tropical and subtropical regions from malaria and dengue infections. For instance, in 2022 alone there were approximately 249 million cases of malaria reported across 85 countries, resulting in 608,000 reported deaths (35). Even though the U.S. eradicated malaria officially in 1951 (36), imported cases are documented annually, and Texas, Maryland, and Florida all reported locally acquired cases as a result of imported cases in 2023 (37). In the U.S., tick-borne disease cases are also on the rise and account for approximately 75% of documented vector-borne disease cases (36, 38, 39). In 2022, public health professionals reported over 60,000 cases of Lyme disease (40). Spotted fever rickettsioses increased from fewer than 500 cases in 2000 to over 5,000 cases reported in 2019 before the case definition changed in 2020 (41). Additionally, new and expanding ranges of vector-borne diseases are being documented, such as the newly emerging threat of Oropouche virus to South America, Cuba, Europe, and North America (42). Other vectors and their associated diseases also impose high health and economic burdens, such as phlebotomine sand flies and leishmaniasis (43), kissing bugs and Chagas disease (44), and human body lice and typhus (45). Cases of vector-borne disease also incur heavy burdens on healthcare systems. For example, in the U.S., an estimated $1.3 billion is spent annually for Lyme disease (46) and $778 million over 14 years for West Nile virus (WNV) (47). Chikungunya virus can result in healthcare costs of approximately $14.8-33.4 million in the U.S. or $2.8 billion globally (48, 49).

Vector-borne diseases commonly affect animals as well. For instance, the prevalence of canine heartworm disease, caused by Dirofilaria immitis nematodes and transmitted by numerous mosquito species to domestic dogs and wild canines, has increased across much of the U.S. (50). Many tick species can transmit pathogens of significant medical and veterinary consequence, resulting in diseases such as Lyme disease (51) and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever (52), which have the potential for zoonotic transmission to people in close contact with affected animals or infected ticks. Vector-borne diseases can cause devastating health and economic impacts to livestock as well. For example, approximately 80% of global cattle production is at risk of contracting tick-borne diseases (53). Ruminants such as cattle, sheep, and goats are at risk of infection from a high variety of bacterial, protozoan, and viral pathogens transmitted by ticks, causing economically important diseases such as anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and theileriosis (54). After eradication of bovine babesiosis in the U.S., the livestock industry has potentially saved $3 billion USD after accounting for inflation (55, 56). At a global scale, economic losses due to tick-borne bovine babesiosis and anaplasmosis can vary between $15–57 million USD, depending on the geographic location (57). While swine can suffer health consequences from vector-borne diseases such as spontaneous abortions and stillbirths, they also exemplify the disease risks from large-scale animal production practices and related invasive species (i.e., feral hogs) that can contribute to zoonotic outbreaks. One such example is the potential for a deadly Japanese encephalitis outbreak that could affect swine populations as well as horses, cattle, and people (58). Venezuelan, eastern, and western equine encephalitis are arboviral diseases that can kill unvaccinated horses after contracting the virus from a bite of an infected mosquito (59). Bites from arthropod vectors can also cause significant health effects, such as bite wounds or sensitivity reactions to salivary proteins, leading to well-known problems like “sweet itch” in horses typically associated with biting midges (60). Certain tick species can release salivary neurotoxins during feeding that can lead to tick paralysis, also known as tick toxicosis (61).

Vector-borne diseases affecting wild animals serve as another example of both disease consequence and disease transmission risk. For instance, in the southwestern U.S., seasonal outbreaks of plague occur in prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) after contact with fleas infected with Yersinia pestis, with the potential for spillover into other species including humans (62). Globally, biting midges can transmit high-consequence pathogens in both domestic animals (e.g., African horse sickness virus in equines) and wild or farmed cervids [e.g., bluetongue virus in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)] (63–65). Arthropods can further act as mechanical vectors by physically transferring pathogens from contaminated surfaces (e.g., manure, droppings, and other fecal material) to susceptible hosts. For example, a study conducted in an avian-influenza enzootic region in Japan found that blowflies (Calliphora spp.) may mechanically transmit high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI), a pathogen typically associated with direct contact or airborne transmission, between wild birds and farmed poultry, a finding with global significance given wild bird migratory routes (66). Additionally, recent detections of HPAI in U.S. dairy cattle and people in 2024 (67), underscore the interconnectedness of environmental, human, and animal health and the critical need for coordinated disease management strategies.

To effectively manage vector populations and lower the risk of pathogen transmission, professionals can apply the One Health framework using science-based methods as part of an integrated vector management (IVM) program, a strategy adapted from integrated pest management (IPM) (Figure 1) (68). Integrated vector management promotes the use of all tools in a toolkit and emphasizes comprehensive planning and control strategies that go beyond chemical interventions and include cultural control, mechanical and physical control, biological control, and targeted chemical control when necessary (Figure 2). Community engagement is a critical component of an effective IVM program, ensuring that public health and pest control professionals work in tandem with local communities to detect and respond to vector-borne disease threats (69–71). Since professionals may not be able to survey or treat every location, educating the community on pest and vector identification, reporting, and disease risk reduction measures is essential to ensure the effectiveness of disease control programs. Additionally, IVM emphasizes data driven decision-making to guide control actions based on predefined action thresholds, mitigating non-target impacts, and evaluating efficacy to ensure vector control professionals achieve their goals of minimizing negative environmental effects (e.g., monitoring and managing insecticide resistance) (68). At the heart of a One Health-based IVM program, surveillance provides the foundation for vector control programs, providing baseline data to determine initial action as well as the data to evaluate changes to vector control programs (72–76). By incorporating the One Health framework into IVM, the health of humans, animals, and the environment can be safeguarded, ultimately reducing the risk of vector-borne diseases while minimizing harm to ecosystems.

Figure 1

Figure 2

2 From IPM to IVM: adaptations for vector-borne disease control

Within animal systems, vector-borne diseases have far-reaching effects, including direct economic losses due to mortality or decreased production in agricultural animals, direct and indirect effects within conservation and wildlife management contexts, and downstream disruptions in ecosystem services. The drivers and effects of disease are complex, involving interconnected systems that are not yet well understood, with the management and consequences thereof even less clear.

Based on the management strategies used in IPM, IVM utilizes similar tools within a vector and vector-borne disease management context (77). One of the major differences between IVM and IPM is that IVM decisions are not purely driven by economic thresholds. Instead, these decisions are also based on how resources can best be allocated to reduce the numbers of vectors or human cases, with the goal of preventing pathogen transmission (77). While different in motivations, IVM incorporates the same four core management strategies used in IPM (Figure 2):

• Cultural control.

• Physical and mechanical control.

• Biological control.

• Chemical control.

2.1 Integrated vector management control strategies

Cultural control refers to education, community engagement, personal protection behaviors, and sanitation efforts focused on the reduction of vector bites and risks of vector-borne disease. In public health contexts, this often involves community-level educational campaigns to raise awareness about local vectors and behaviors that can reduce disease risk, such as staying indoors during peak mosquito active hours or avoiding brushy and woody areas where ticks are more commonly found (78–80). In the context of animal disease, this can involve veterinarians educating pet owners about the benefits of vaccinations and prophylactics as well as risk-reduction behaviors to reduce the likelihood of bites (81, 82). In livestock systems, cultural control is often focused on sanitation practices that eliminate or reduce breeding conditions for pests and vectors, such as removal of manure for fly control or mowed pastures for tick control (83).

Physical and mechanical control can be broadly defined as structural or environmental modifications that prevent contact between hosts and arthropod vectors, thereby limiting pathogen transmission (84). While most studies extrapolate the use of barriers at the individual level, many of these barriers can be scaled up to protect entire communities or be geographically vast in scope, such as the use of draining trenches for mosquito control. By collectively implementing barriers, both individuals and those around them can be better protected. Examples of barriers include window and door screens, mosquito netting, landscape alterations, and environmental management that limit vector movement or survival. Additionally, wildlife fencing can prevent wild animals and any attached vectors from entering premises.

Biological control of vectors utilizes natural enemies (e.g., predators, parasites, competitors, and pathogens) to suppress and control the target vector species or host-derived advantages to reduce effects of vector bites or disease (e.g., anti-tick host resistance traits, harnessing and promoting effects of endemic stability). Specific examples of biological control to control arthropod vectors include the use of fungi, mosquitofish, parasitoids, arthropod predators, and vertebrate predators, with genetic or biological modifications of hosts or vectors themselves (e.g., using sterile insect technique and gene drives to limit vector or pathogen reproduction) often categorized as newer innovations within biological control. However, knowledge on the interactions between the agent, vector of interest, and the environment is needed to effectively use biological control agents as a sustainable control method and to mitigate potentially deleterious environmental consequences. This includes knowledge on the degree of host specificity, resources required for colony maintenance and release, and the possible ecological impacts following release of the biocontrol agents.

Chemical controls are used to prevent and reduce the risk of bites by eliminating the vector. This type of measure can include pesticide applications to the environment, on-host insecticides, acaricides, therapeutics, disinfectants, and chemical-impregnated fabrics. While there are some chemical applications used preventatively, chemical control is often used as an intervention in response to a specific event such as a positive index case (human or animal), positive vector (individual or pool), or vector abundance reaching a predefined action threshold (85–87). Some examples of chemical control include aerial applications of insecticides to control black fly or mosquito populations (i.e., aerial spraying or adulticiding), insecticide application to stagnant water sources (i.e., larviciding), and acaricide treated cotton in tick control tubes (i.e., host-targeted control).

Not all tactics fall exclusively within one strategy of IVM control, with numerous tactics harnessing the advantages of multiple control strategies. For instance, the use of insecticide resistant nets can be used as a physical barrier to prevent contact between hosts and mosquitoes, while also providing chemical control to kill mosquitoes that come in contact with the net (88). Another example is mowing pastures for tick control, which can be categorized as a cultural control and physical and mechanical control. This tactic generates a behavior to reduce viable habitat for ticks and it creates a barrier between high and low use areas, thus reducing tick bite risk (89). For more examples of control types in each management strategy of IVM, see Table 1.

2.2 Historic use of IVM practices

Historically, humans have manipulated their environment to manage vectors and vector-borne disease. Long before the new era of chemical control in the 1900s, people were exploring different methods of vector control. One of the first intervention trials was conducted in the 1800s in Rome and used physical barriers to prevent pathogen transmission from vectors. The trials, conducted by Angelo Celli, found that covering windows and doors with cloth or screening to prevent mosquitoes from entering homes led to a reduction in malaria cases (149, 150). Because infection frequently occurred indoors, several studies and reviews successfully implemented simple modifications to homes, such as using netted windows, screened doors, and closed eaves, to protect people from Anopheline mosquitoes and reduce the number of clinical malaria cases (88, 150–153).

Agricultural systems were one of the primary innovations that enabled the rise of complex human societies, bringing crops, animals, and humans closer together in higher densities. These changes quickly led to changes in pathogen transmission cycles, often leading to increased rates of zoonotic pathogen transmission due to crowded and unsanitary conditions as well as increased human-animal contact and densities (154–156). In fact, many diseases with high global consequence likely arose directly or indirectly due to farming and domestication of animals, such as malaria, measles, smallpox, and influenza (3, 154–156). While not all of these diseases are vector-borne, many can be transmitted by arthropod vectors, allowing for transmission to occur outside of direct animal-to-human or human-to-human contact.

Synthesized chemicals have been used as a vector control tool since the early 1900s (76). As chemical use became more common and widespread, so did the consequences. As a result, public opinion on chemical use for vector control has been controversial, with many successes marred by deleterious downstream effects. For example, in the past, public health professionals widely and indiscriminately used the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) to control vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and typhus, with much success (157). Unfortunately, the egregious use of this pesticide also led to the rapid development of insecticide resistance and other negative consequences such as long environmental persistence, accumulation in fatty tissues, declines in wildlife health, and dispersal through the upper atmosphere (157).

Today, IVM programs and the decisions to implement vector and vector-borne disease control are data-driven. As such, IVM programs conduct routine surveillance of pest populations and pathogen activity to inform control decisions as well as to collect efficacy data to improve future iterations. Modern technological advancements also enable the use of precision equipment and techniques to apply an optimal amount of pesticide at targeted delivery sites for direct contact with the vector. For example, ultra-low volume (ULV) space sprays target adult mosquitoes and use very small volumes of pesticide (generally <1 oz/acre) (145). While delivery often involves precision tools, chemical interventions can still negatively affect non-target organisms such as terrestrial wildlife, aquatic species, and beneficial insects (146, 158–161). This highlights the significance and need for continual surveillance and evaluation of IVM programs in order to maximize the impact on entomological and disease indices while minimizing harm to the environment and its inhabitants.

3 IVM in a One Health context

Humans and animals live together in one environment, and the interactions among the three groups can influence the overall health experienced within each group (162–164). As such, One Health emphasizes the importance of protecting and maintaining a healthy environment to reduce the incidence of disease in humans and animals. An IVM program supports One Health’s goal of preserving health across people, animals, and the environment by routinely engaging communities, surveying the environment for vectors and pathogens to make data-driven control decisions, and continuously evaluating effectiveness of management practices to ensure goals are met and modify strategies as needed (Figure 1). Specifically, IVM focuses on the prevention of vector bites and the transmission of vector-borne pathogens, encouraging community involvement to reduce vector encounters, minimizing pressure that could lead to insecticide and antimicrobial resistance, and reducing reliance solely on chemical controls.

While vector control strategies, policies, and methodologies have significantly reduced the burden of vector-borne diseases in many regions, the field remains largely confined to a subset of human health professionals, such as vector and pest control operators, vector biologists, entomologists, public health scientists, and policy-makers. This discipline-specific focus, while often effective in addressing immediate public health concerns, limits the broader potential of IVM to enhance not only human health but also animal and environmental health and wellness. By expanding the scope of IVM through a One Health framework, interdisciplinary collaboration can be strengthened to include professionals in veterinary sciences, wildlife and environmental sciences, data sciences, social and behavioral sciences, conservation and preservation professionals, educators, mental health experts, and policy-makers involved in these varied sectors. This holistic and collaborative approach would enhance efforts to monitor and mitigate animal and human disease outbreaks (including zoonotic diseases and spillover cases), improve behavioral change and adoption of prevention tactics, reduce environmental pollution and mitigate environmental indirect effects of chemicals and pharmaceuticals used for disease prevention and control, and promote ecological resilience (165). Furthermore, fostering healthier ecosystems can yield indirect benefits to human health, such as improved mental well-being through increased access to natural spaces and reduced environmental stressors.

Beyond interdisciplinary cooperation, a One Health-based IVM strategy enables more effective surveillance, ecological interventions, and sustainable vector control. Integrated disease monitoring across human, animal, and environmental health sectors can provide early detection of emerging vector-borne disease threats, allowing for timely intervention. Ecological approaches, such as habitat restoration and biological control using natural predators, can reduce reliance on chemical interventions, slowing insecticide resistance and minimizing harm to non-target species. Additionally, coordination between health disciplines and professionals can enable agile future adaptation, planning, and response efforts. For instance, coordination between vector control professionals, climate scientists, and urban planners could facilitate developing climate-smart vector management to prepare for shifts in vector populations due to changing environments and other factors. By incorporating these broader considerations into vector management programs, IVM can continue to push public health beyond a reactionary model toward a proactive, adaptive, and ecologically responsible approach that supports all three sectors of health - human, animal, and environmental.

Additionally, by using a One Health approach to IVM, the health of one sector can safeguard the health of the other sectors. For example, biosecurity and surveillance measures in poultry houses targeting avian influenza not only reduce transmission among birds but also minimize risks to farm workers, other livestock, and potentially wildlife as well. Similarly, the re-emergence of bed bugs (Cimex lectularius) in poultry facilities underscores the need for coordinated management strategies, as infestations pose risks to both poultry workers and poultry production systems (166–168). Additionally, in zoonotic disease systems, reducing disease incidence in animal reservoirs and alternative animal hosts can lower human infection risk. For instance, treating domestic pigs and dogs for malaria parasites can decrease the malaria infection risk to humans under certain circumstances (169). Similarly, in the Lyme disease system of the northeastern United States, interventions targeting reservoir hosts have shown promise in reducing human risk. Methods such as treating mice with permethrin to eliminate ticks (139, 140, 143) or vaccinating wildlife hosts against Borrelia burgdorferi (the causative agent of Lyme disease) and other tick-borne pathogens (136, 137) can lower the prevalence of infected ticks, thereby decreasing the likelihood of pathogen transmission to humans (89). For many zoonotic and vector-borne disease systems, effective management and control requires education and intervention across multiple sectors.

3.1 IVM promotes prevention strategies

“A dose of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” is a core tenet of IVM by emphasizing prevention of vectors and vector-borne disease over intervention when feasible. Successful prevention of vectors and vector-borne disease often combines several preventative strategies such as community education, behavioral changes, and mechanical and physical barriers that include landscape and environmental modification. With rising concerns on the potential adverse health and environmental effects of chemicals used to control vector populations, prevention-focused tactics, such as cultural control and physical and mechanical barriers, can be used as an alternative or a supplement to chemical controls (79, 170, 171). Vector knowledge, risk reduction behaviors, and sanitation serve critical roles in any effective IVM plan regardless of industry (e.g., public health or agriculture), thus many IVM programs start with cultural control and habitat modification to prevent vector development. For instance, one of the most important prevention methods in livestock systems is to ensure that manure is handled quickly, efficiently, and safely, as manure attracts many arthropod species (97). Inappropriately handled manure not only contributes to pest problems and animal welfare concerns on-farm but can also lead to downstream water and land pollution, affecting environmental and human health as well (98).

Mosquitoes can also benefit from unkempt environments because their immature life stages require a water source and organic material for development. As such, one critical mosquito control strategy is source reduction, such as removing or emptying containers that hold water or even laser leveling the ground. Programs that include source reduction and covering containers in their educational program can directly impact entomological indices such as reductions in larvae and pupae (93, 95, 96, 172–174). However, these reductions are not always consistent due to a variety of factors ranging from community socioeconomic status to behaviors of cryptic mosquito species (94, 175–177).

Physical barriers can provide protection from vector bites thus reducing the risk of pathogen transmission without using chemical controls. For example, even non-treated bed nets prevented a substantial proportion of Anopheline mosquitoes from entering homes in a study comparing treated and non-treated bed nets (106). More significant modifications such as building raised homes, platforms, and seating areas above the ground have also been successful in preventing mosquito bites, since Anopheline mosquitoes tend to host-seek closer to the ground (103, p. 198; 105, 107, 108).

Like altering the home or facility itself, the environment and landscape surrounding the home, community, or livestock facilities can be modified to prevent the entry of arthropod vectors and hosts relevant to vector-borne disease cycles. For instance, public health professionals have suggested modifications such as installing physical barriers around a lawn or adding ground barriers to separate properties from forested regions to prevent ticks from entering areas frequented by people (112). Efficacy of these fences and ground barriers to deter ticks will differ depending on several factors such as the tick-specific behaviors, tick-host associations, host behavior and size, and physical properties of the barriers (89, 104, 109–111, 178–183).

General environmental and landscape management removes potential arthropod vector habitats in areas that may be used by people and animals, reducing contact with vectors. Theoretically, unmanaged yards that have trash, leaf litter, or unmowed grass can provide additional habitats for ticks and small mammal hosts such as white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) (112). However, the consensus on whether regular lawn management has any effect on tick presence or abundance is unclear. While trash predicted higher abundance of questing larval Ixodes scapularis ticks in New York (109), leaf litter accumulation and unmowed properties did not result in significant differences of nymphal I. scapularis ticks on properties in Connecticut (111). Differences are also likely dependent on the biology and behaviors of the tick species and life stages of interest (184–191). Field evaluations on landscape management to reduce tick abundance are scarce and even fewer studies have evaluated these methods as ways to reduce tick-borne disease incidence (89).

3.2 IVM supports community involvement and public education

Implementing community-wide educational efforts with the goal of effecting long-term behavioral changes to prevent vector bites and pathogen transmission has been successful when integrated with other methods. For example, Fonseca et al. (192) attempted to reduce Ae. albopictus abundance by using an IVM program that targeted multiple mosquito life stages through a combination of active source reduction, adulticiding, larviciding, and public education. The study found that combined outreach education and community-wide source reduction resulted in significantly less Ae. albopitcus populations, noting that the combined efforts were more effective and lasted longer than adulticide spraying alone (192). Likewise, a similar study conducted in Mexico also reported that educational campaigns were more effective at reducing Ae. aegypti populations compared to spraying adulticides (193). In Africa, an IVM program that included long-lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs), larviciding with Bti, and community engagement reduced the prevalence of malaria by 50% in an environment with low infection prevalence (80).

For IVM, educational campaigns can take many forms (e.g., outreach events, presentations, publications, school lessons, and workshops) and have been distributed by several types of groups including mosquito and vector control programs, academic institutions, extension programs, non-profit organizations, and private entities. The goal for many of these programs is to inform and mass-educate communities, whether they are emphasizing personal prevention measures, the risks of vector-borne diseases, or interventions and products designed to prevent vector-borne disease transmission. The general principle is that when more people are informed about the disease system and associated risks and are given options for prevention, they feel more empowered to make informed decisions about their preventative behaviors (78, 194). Although community acceptance of prevention practices may be high or perceived positively, successful adoption of these behaviors also requires intersectoral collaboration, government policy, and financial support (151).

In addition, educational programs should also include information on emerging tools and products that stakeholders can incorporate into their vector-borne disease prevention or management plans. Understanding community engagement practices and innovation characteristics that enable or hinder adoption of products can improve sustainability and acceptance of new products. In Guatemala, intersectoral collaborations with communities led to the development of a community-based IVM plan for Chagas disease prevention, leading to successful adoption and acceptance of their integrated strategies (195). Further, innovations that are lower in complexity and compatible with local practices are likely to have better acceptance amongst stakeholder groups (195, 196). “Farmer field schools” in Sri Lanka developed and presented curricula focused on emerging IVM tools and practices and emphasized the risks of using chemical control in agriculture (197). Overall, this led to successful adoption of several practices related to improving environmental sanitation and personal protective measures against mosquitoes. While a foundation of knowledge of vector-borne disease systems is important, education on the application of new technologies and aligning those technologies with local contexts, values, and needs of the participants is critical in ensuring successful adoption of new behaviors or breakthrough technologies.

The form of information delivery is just as important as the information itself, as engaging information is more likely to connect with and motivate people to take preventative measures and participate in efforts to reduce the risk of vector-borne disease. Passive education and information delivery is often ineffective. Instead, educators should aim to identify the best method of information dissemination for their audience and co-develop campaigns with the community and their leaders or peer educators (69, 94). One example of a method that has been effective at information dissemination is the integration of vector and vector-borne disease messaging in school curricula. Children attending school are considered change agents since they can communicate health messages to their families, peers, and the greater community, therefore, integrating vector and vector-borne disease educational programs into school curricula has been successful in providing far-reaching community-wide education (99, 198–201).

3.3 IVM promotes utilizing natural systems to reduce selection pressure toward antimicrobial resistance

Rising global population, urbanization, and increasing demand for animal products have driven a significant expansion in livestock production. This intensification, particularly in high-density animal operations, has both directly and indirectly exacerbated the challenges of emerging and reemerging pests and diseases, including their rapid transmission and difficulties with containment (202, 203). To curb or prevent disease transmission, including vector-borne diseases, animal husbandry professionals have dramatically increased their use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, antimicrobials, and anti-parasitics across entire herds and flocks, often without regard to the current or potential disease status of individuals or the population (204). Antimicrobials are also used at subtherapeutic doses for disease prevention and growth promotion purposes (204). In fact, animal production operations use the vast proportion of the global antimicrobial supply (3, 205, 206). The heavy use of antimicrobials in animal production has led to increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance in various pathogens that threaten not only livestock and animal health, but human health as well (3, 4, 11, 98, 203).

It should be noted that while antimicrobial resistance is still a major issue for many countries, antimicrobial usage in the European Union (EU) has been decreasing since 2022 when the new Regulation on Veterinary Medicines Products (Regulation EU 2019/6) was implemented in an effort to curb antimicrobial resistance in agricultural animals (207). For some countries such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, bans on antimicrobials for animal growth purposes started prior to the 2022 regulation, and these countries have argued that restrictions on non-therapeutic uses of antimicrobials can be implemented with minimal production consequences (208, 209). Instead of relying on antimicrobials, these countries emphasize that the health of livestock should rely on effective husbandry and welfare practices (210). Given that the regulations only started in 2022 across the EU and that each country will have their own policies to manage the ban, further research and analyses are required to fully comprehend the long-term effects of antimicrobial bans across the EU (211, 212).

The concept of endemic stability can also be incorporated into an IVM plan as a possible disease management tool. Endemic stability describes a state where a pathogen is present within a population but rarely causes severe disease, often due to early exposure that confers lasting host immunity (4). This phenomenon is typically observed in regions with a long history of host-pathogen coevolution. For example, in East and Central Africa, bovine theileriosis is endemic, and cattle are consistently exposed to both the pathogen and tick vector species. In these regions, indigenous Zebu cattle (Bos indicus) frequently demonstrate immunity, with minimal or no clinical signs of disease, exhibiting endemic stability (127, 129). Additionally, studies of Zebu and other indigenous African cattle breeds’ host defense mechanisms may provide genetic and immunological traits that are advantageous and could be harnessed for use with cattle breeds that are less resistant and resilient to tick bites and tick-borne diseases (128, 213).

Historically, interactions between wildlife and livestock can lead to disease transmission or spillover between species. This can occur when wildlife serve as reservoirs for naturally-circulating pathogens, thus facilitating transmission of vector-borne diseases in areas of wildlife-livestock contact and overlap (214). However, wildlife diversity serves beneficial purposes as well, even for the livestock industry. Whereas ticks may feed on a variety of host species, some hosts may be better able to remove or kill ticks than others and thus may serve as “trap” species for ticks, thereby reducing overall parasite abundance in that particular community and reliance on antiparasitics or antimicrobials (215). However, studies exploring the relationship between biodiversity and disease transmission cycles have yielded mixed results, highlighting the complexity of these interactions (214, 215) (see section 4.1).

Methods that eradicate parasites, pests, and diseases often only work effectively in the short-term. For example, if the same or a similar pest (re)emerges, the host may no longer have immunity against infection or infestation and is at greater risk of morbidity and mortality (216). The increasing rates of antimicrobial resistant infections reveal the weaknesses in relying solely on therapeutic and chemical intervention as management strategies. While an IVM strategy may not resolve the current antimicrobial crisis, its value is highlighted by promoting diverse strategies and using surveillance to detect and predict disease threats before they occur, ideally reducing the reliance on antimicrobials for preventative and therapeutic interventions (4).

3.4 IVM promotes reducing risk associated with chemical interventions

Of 84 surveyed countries (not including the U.S.), the vector-borne diseases linked to the highest pesticide use by public health professionals were malaria, dengue, leishmaniases, and Chagas disease (217). These diseases alone account for 107–408 million infections and over 600,000 deaths every year worldwide (218–221), clearly highlighting the need for effective vector control. However, even though pesticides are one of the most valuable tools available for vector control and disease risk management, they also carry some of the greatest hazard (potential to harm) and risk (the likelihood harm will occur) to the health of people, animals, and the environment.

As such, an effective IVM plan would utilize insecticides to prevent and reduce vectors as only one tool in a larger toolkit and their use is based on data-driven decisions and action thresholds (68, 222, 223). One of the goals of using numerous control tactics and pre-planned, data-informed insecticide applications is to decrease use of insecticides overall, lower incidence of insecticide and behavioral resistance in target vector populations, mitigate non-target effects, and reduce environmental contamination from chemical use. For instance, in an agricultural setting, by using an IPM approach while growing corn and watermelon, farmers applied 95% fewer pesticide applications compared to using a standard conventional management approach and were still able to maintain and even increase crop yields (224). Unfortunately, there are few, if any, studies in vector systems that have done similar comparisons. Future research to assess changes in insecticide use and associated costs using IVM compared to other vector control methods would provide critical information for developing efficient and cost-effective vector management plans.

When using chemical control tools, many IVM programs choose lower risk strategies before progressing to relatively higher-risk options. For instance, science-based mosquito control programs will target immature mosquitoes as a first-line measure with the goal of preventing adult emergence. While costs vary substantially, larviciding is particularly cost-effective in urban areas where targeting fewer aquatic sites can protect more people from mosquito bites and associated diseases (147, 148). Several active ingredients exist to perform this action such as methoprene, pyriproxyfen, and spinosad (68). Another tool used by mosquito control professionals, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, or Bti, is a bacterium with spores that produce toxins lethal to immature mosquitoes, black flies, and fungus gnats (117). In addition to being used in mosquito control programs, Bti has also been successfully used as part of an IVM plan to reduce cases of human onchocerciasis, or river blindness, by controlling black flies that can transmit the causative agent, Onchocerca volvulus (118, 119, 225, 226). The specific action of Bti products, combined with their low toxicity to both mammals and honey bees, makes them excellent tools for managing vectors while minimizing non-target effects (117).

Control measures that eliminate vectors but also hold the potential to impact non-target organisms, such as pollinators, may be too risky for the reward of vector elimination. Thus, to further minimize the exposure of non-target organisms, vector control professionals must understand the biology of both the targeted pests and other organisms in the environment to help ensure that applications are timed to affect the vector while minimizing impact on non-target organisms. Many mosquitoes targeted by vector control professionals are most active at dusk and night (227–229) while other organisms, such as bees and butterflies, are more active during the day (131, 230). Taken as a whole, strategically timed ULV applications of adulticides intended to target mosquitoes are often applied at dusk and early evenings. As a result, the tiny droplets float in the air and come into direct contact with active, flying mosquitoes while ideally avoiding non-target organisms at rest, such as pollinators.

3.5 IVM reduces selection pressure for insecticide resistance

As previously described, pesticides can manage vectors in the environment, but sometimes their use can cause counterintuitive impacts such as selecting for insecticide resistant vectors. Application of pesticides to control vectors exerts selection pressure by killing individuals susceptible to the pesticide, while survivors become the progenitors of the next generation (217). If this pressure persists, the population may become resistant to the insecticide, leading to control failure. Researchers worldwide have documented insecticide resistance for many different vectors including mosquitoes (231–233), ticks (234–236), body lice (237, 238), kissing bugs (239), fleas (240, 241), and sand flies (43).

A proactive vector control program includes insecticide resistance monitoring of the targeted vector populations to mitigate risks and take appropriate actions to manage insecticide resistance when it occurs (242). When resources permit, programs should also investigate the underlying molecular mechanisms of resistance as this will inform what insecticide resistance management (IRM) strategy may be most effective at delaying or reversing resistance. Potential IRM strategies include rotating between different modes of actions, using multiple modes of action simultaneously, and targeting different life stages for control (68). These strategies can be effective because the mechanisms of resistance often carry a fitness cost, therefore, removing the selection pressure can lead to a reversion back toward susceptibility (243). By regularly monitoring and managing insecticide resistance, IVM reduces selection pressure for resistance (244) and subsequently helps manage the environmental impact of insecticides.

4 Considerations when implementing and evaluating IVM programs

As exemplified by many of the studies highlighted in this review, IVM programs and efforts have had great success in vector and disease reduction across many disease systems, communities, and regions. However, the success of an IVM program is often dependent on the unique needs, locality, resource availability, and involvement of the community and solutions available for the vector-borne disease system. These varied and diverse considerations make generalizations from study results challenging to interpret and implement in different contexts. This is particularly apparent with studies that investigate interventions or methods employed at the community level or that require field evaluations, highlighting the complexities in evaluating and implementing effective IVM strategies for disease and vector reduction.

4.1 Ecological principles cannot be applied broadly due to complexities in vector-borne disease systems

Disease systems are inherently complex, with vector-borne diseases particularly complex as they involve multiple live organisms in the pathogen transmission and maintenance cycles. With several organisms represented in these systems, the role of biodiversity in enzootic cycles of vector-borne disease is still not well-understood. Human manipulation of the environment can lead to decreased biodiversity (245), which can contribute to increased risk of vector-borne disease in certain circumstances. For instance, the dilution effect posits that lower species diversity can lead to higher incidence of vector-borne disease through increased likelihood that a vector will bite a reservoir host rather than a dead-end host without disease transmission potential (246).

An example of the dilution effect in action is the Lyme disease system. Ixodid ticks transmit B. burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, which is the most common vector-borne disease reported in the U.S. (40). The primary vector, I. scapularis, is a three-host tick, meaning that each life stage requires a blood meal from a different host to molt into the next life stage (247). Given this tick species’ generalist feeding habits and the varying degrees of reservoir competency for different animal hosts, the dilution effect predicts that environments with higher biodiversity (i.e., more diverse host options) should present lower risk of Lyme disease pathogen transmission since tick bites on hosts with lower reservoir competency would mean fewer bites on hosts with higher reservoir competency (248, 249). Additionally, introducing different types of treatments or altering animal communities can affect tick and tick-borne pathogen composition, as observed in studies of tick abundance and species composition in treated livestock systems in central Kenya (250). Thus, to interrupt disease transmission cycles, IVM programs could include strategies or collaborations to maintain and promote host species richness. However, more research is needed on leveraging the dilution effect for disease risk mitigation, as the numerous and varied complexities within these systems have led to diverse study outcomes (164, 251).

Given these complexities, the dilution effect may not be universally applicable to all geographical locations, vector-borne disease systems, or measures of species richness and infection risk. Such is the case with WNV, the leading cause of arboviral disease in the U.S. (252). Although first recorded domestically in 1999 (253), centuries of human-driven habitat modifications contributed to a decline in overall avian biodiversity while favoring commensal species, many of which are also reservoir hosts for WNV (163). However, the evidence of the relationship between avian species richness and WNV transmission is mixed. For example, in one study avian species richness did not affect WNV prevalence in Culex mosquitoes or birds (254), while in another study avian richness was negatively correlated with WNV-positive mosquitoes and human cases but only when assessing non-passerine bird species (255). Promoting and ensuring native species diversity is valuable for a variety of reasons, but the role species diversity plays in IVM programs for disease management is still uncertain. Regardless, effective IVM strategies must account for disease-specific, ecological, and regional factors that can influence disease cycles and impact successful implementation of IVM programs.

4.2 Research and collaboration are needed to improve outcomes from educational campaigns

Because many vector-borne diseases do not have an effective approved vaccine to prevent disease manifestation, education on vector bite prevention is vital for preventing vector-borne pathogen transmission. However, increased knowledge on vector-borne diseases may not always correspond with increased personal protection (256–260). This highlights a critical knowledge gap in understanding reasons for initial and long-lasting behavioral change (261).

Educational campaigns rarely assess reductions in bite or disease burden associated with information uptake and behavior change. In the limited number of studies that have evaluated risk reduction through follow-up assessments, the results were surprising. These studies found significant differences in behavior and attitudes toward tick and tick-borne disease prevention. Groups that received educational materials were more likely to adopt preventative measures (91) and reported more positive attitudes, higher levels of knowledge, and greater adoption of tick bite and tick-borne disease prevention methods (92). However, even with these behavior and knowledge changes, both studies reported that there was no significant difference in reported tick bites or tick-borne disease exposure assessed via serology (91, 92). These results suggest that other external social and behavioral factors influence an individual’s assessment of their own risk for exposure to ticks and tick-borne diseases. Collaborations with social and behavioral scientists will be critical in developing and assessing initiatives for consistent and long-lasting risk reduction educational programs.

While vector control educational campaigns may report community knowledge on vectors and vector-borne disease risk, it is vital for these campaigns to follow-up and assess whether the interventions led to a correlated change in entomological indices, reports of vector encounters, or disease incidence. These assessments can be useful in gauging the baseline level of knowledge or beliefs towards preventative practices to optimize future messaging and communication efforts, but further research is required to assess the efficacy of these tools in changing vector and vector-borne disease risk. Additionally, untangling knowledge retention from sustained changes in behavior is complex and will require further studies and long-term monitoring to identify underlying variables that contribute to behavior change.

4.3 Costs associated with IVM programs can be prohibitive

Using multiple tools in an IVM plan has been shown to be effective in controlling arthropod vectors, depending on the combination of methods employed. However, there are drawbacks in using multiple control methods, such as high financial costs required to implement and sustain efforts and complexities in determining the true effect of each method to optimize future IVM plans (262). Upfront costs for multiple IVM strategies can be expensive, particularly for large-scale landscape modifications, environmental improvements, and releases of biological control agents. While large-scale modifications and releases are not essential for an IVM program, their implementation has the potential to offset future vector control costs (263).

In general, the more management tactics involved in an IVM plan, the higher the monetary cost. Unfortunately, the projected costs to run vector control programs and to implement multiple control efforts are not always aligned with current budgets or people’s willingness to pay for vector control (264). However, studies in the U.S. found that communities that experience higher mosquito population densities or disease outbreaks may be more willing to pay for mosquito abatement programs. For instance, a study in New Jersey found that respondents were willing to pay on-average three times the current operating costs for mosquito abatement in their district (265). Studies in Arizona, Florida, and Texas also showed increased willingness to pay for mosquito control efforts, further emphasizing the desire for expanded mosquito control (266, 267). This willingness to pay for vector control is not true for all vector systems. An integrated tick control program would cost between $508-3,192 annually per household; however, a survey found that people were only willing to pay $100–150 annually for tick control (262). Furthermore, costs for control efforts can rise exponentially depending on the size of the land and application frequency required to control ticks.

The cost of paying for expanded services offered by vector control programs is likely to fall on citizens through tax increases (264). However, when asked if the public would support tax increases to pay for extra tick control services, only 21% of responding U.S. vector control programs believed that the public would support the tax increase, with the highest support in the Northeast and the lowest support in the Upper Midwest (264). Unsurprisingly, as the risk of disease increases, so does the willingness to pay for vector control programs. In Wisconsin, residents were initially only willing to pay for nuisance mosquito control, but when WNV disease risk increased so did their willingness to pay for mosquito control services targeting these vectors (268).

When compared to other management tactics, a biological control component can be an expensive tool due to high resource and economic costs. High host specificity of the biological control agent can limit the production speed of these agents to adequately meet demand and need. Biological control agents also require resources for growth and maintenance in optimal conditions. Furthermore, some biological control agents require inundative releases to maintain population levels at a density that can adequately reduce the arthropod vector abundance (114, 124, 133). The use of genetic manipulation, such as through gene editing or gene drive insertion to reduce vector populations or through selective breeding programs and genetic modification for adaptive or resistant traits in livestock, can be effective but is extremely expensive in initial stages of research and development, and often remains expensive in application but holds promise with future advances and cost reductions (128, 130). Ultimately, many biological control options can be costly and economically limiting when considering the knowledge, time, and resources required to rear, release, and maintain biological control populations and when using genetic modification tools and strategies (114, 120, 123, 124, 130).

Lastly, while cooperative planning and specialized knowledge on local vectors and vector-borne diseases are paramount for developing and deploying effective IVM plans, this is not always feasible due to resource limitations. For instance, many locations with high vector-borne disease burden may face challenges due to limited personnel or expertise, time and resource constraints, or limited buy-in from municipal, organizational, or community partners (263, 269). As communities develop their ideal IVM plans, they should be realistic with their goals based on the additional cost, resources, and time required to implement several methods.

5 Conclusion

Vector-borne diseases have far-reaching effects, including direct loss of life or livelihood, economic impacts from mortality or reduced agricultural production, and both direct and indirect consequences for conservation, wildlife management, and ecosystem services. Vector-borne disease systems are highly complex and not yet fully understood. However, strategies for managing vectors and their associated diseases are continually evolving, prioritizing flexible and adaptable approaches rather than absolute control. Integrated vector management principles offer a future-oriented framework for addressing vector-borne diseases across the three interconnected spheres of the One Health paradigm—human, animal, and environmental health.

As new strategies are developed, they should be rigorously evaluated and tailored to specific ecological contexts, ensuring effective and sustainable outcomes. Data-driven decision-making, supported by ongoing research and case studies, will remain critical for refining practices and guiding more successful iterations of management in the future. Furthermore, future work should focus on the economic and efficacious impacts when implementing integrative strategies and comparisons across different plans and geographical regions, thereby providing communities with information to make informed decisions about applying IVM strategies within a One Health context. The principles underlying both One Health and IVM have evolved over time into robust paradigms that align closely in their goals of promoting the long-term health of animals, people, and the environment. Though not always discussed in tandem, these frameworks share a commitment to addressing the complex challenges posed by vector-borne diseases in a holistic and integrative manner.

References

• 1

  JonesKEPatelNGLevyMAStoreygardABalkDGittlemanJLet al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature. (2008) 451:990–3. doi: 10.1038/nature06536

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  MachalabaCCLohEHDaszakPKareshWB. Emerging Diseases from Animals, in: State of the World 2015: Confronting Hidden Threats to Sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics (2015) p. 105–16. doi: 10.5822/978-1-61091-611-0_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  RohrJRBarrettCBCivitelloDJCraftMEDeliusBDeLeoGAet al. Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nat Sustain. (2019) 2:445–56. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0293-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Guidelines: Resistance management and integrated parasite control in ruminants. Rome, Italy: Animal Production and Health Division Agriculture Department (2004).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  CutlerDMillerG. The role of public health improvements in health advances: The twentieth-century United States. Demography. (2005) 42:1–22. doi: 10.1353/dem.2005.0002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  FairchildALRosnerDColgroveJBayerRFriedLP. The exodus of public health: what history can tell us about the future. Am J Public Health. (2010) 100:54–63. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.163956

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  MainBJLeeYCollierTCNorrisLCBriscoKFofanaAet al. Complex genome evolution in Anopheles coluzzii associated with increased insecticide usage in Mali. Mol Ecol. (2015) 24:5145–57. doi: 10.1111/mec.13382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  NorrisLCMainBJLeeYCollierTCFofanaACornelAJet al. Adaptive introgression in an African malaria mosquito coincident with the increased usage of insecticide-treated bed nets. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2015) 112:815–20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418892112

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  SparksTCStorerNPorterASlaterRNauenR. Insecticide resistance management and industry: the origins and evolution of the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) and the mode of action classification scheme. Pest Manage Sci. (2021) 77:2609–19. doi: 10.1002/ps.6254

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  LevySBFitzGeraldGBMaconeAB. Changes in intestinal flora of farm personnel after introduction of a tetracycline-supplemented feed on a farm. N Engl J Med. (1976) 295:583–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197609092951103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  SpellbergBHansenGRKarACordovaCDPriceLBJohnsonJR. Antibiotic resistance in humans and animals. Natl Acad Med Perspect. (2016) 6. doi: 10.31478/201606d

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  KaplanBKahnLHMonathTPWoodallJ. “ONE HEALTH” and parasitology. Parasitol Vectors. (2009) 2:36. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-36

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  NelsonMK. The landscape of disease: swamps and medical discourse in the American Southeast 1880-1880. Miss. Q. (2002) 55:535–67.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  Nature. Manson medal for tropical medical research. Nature. (1932) 129:716. doi: 10.1038/129716b0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  AssadianOStanekG. Theobald Smith - The discoverer of ticks as vectors of disease. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. (2002) 114:479–81.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  KhabbazRFMoseleyRRSteinerRJLevittAMBellBP. Challenges of infectious diseases in the USA. Lancet. (2014) 384:53–63. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60890-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  Pettan-BrewerCPennGBiondoAWJaenischTGrützmacherKKahnLH. Who coined the term “One Health”? Cooperation amid the siloization. One Health. (2024) 18:100678. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100678

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  CDC. About one health. Atlanta, Georgia: One Health (2024). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/one-health/about/index.html.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  Kreuder JohnsonCHitchensPLSmiley EvansTGoldsteinTThomasKClementsAet al. Spillover and pandemic properties of zoonotic viruses with high host plasticity. Sci Rep. (2015) 5:14830. doi: 10.1038/srep14830

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  StuchinMMachalabaCCKareshWB. Vector-borne diseases: Animals and patterns, in: Global Health Impacts of Vector-Borne Diseases: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US (2016).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  MorseSS. Factors in the emergence of infectious diseases. Emerg Infect Dis. (1995) 1:7–15. doi: 10.3201/eid0101.950102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  JeffryLOngMYNomanbhaySMofijurMMubashirMShowPL. Greenhouse gases utilization: A review. Fuel. (2021) 301:121017. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  CodecoCTOliveiraSSFerreiraDACRibackTISBastosLSLanaRMet al. Fast expansion of dengue in Brazil. Lancet Reg. Health - Am. (2022) 12:100274. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  DeshpandeGBeetchJEHellerJGNaqviOHKuhnKG. Assessing the influence of climate change and environmental factors on the top tick-borne diseases in the United States: A systematic review. Microorganisms. (2023) 12:50. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12010050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  EisenLEisenRJ. Changes in the geographic distribution of the blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis, in the United States. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. (2023) 14:102233. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2023.102233

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  YomogidaKKjemtrupAMartínez-LópezBIbrahimMContrerasZNgoVet al. Surveillance of flea-borne typhus in California 2011–2019. Am J Trop Med Hyg. (2024) 110:142–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.23-0272

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  BradyJMordecaiEShocketM. This news bites: more mosquito days | Climate central. Princeton, New Jersey: Clim. Cent (2020). Available at: https://medialibrary.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/more-mosquito-days.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  McKenzieBAStevensKMcKenzieAEBozicJMathiasDZohdyS. Aedes Vector Surveillance in the Southeastern United States Reveals Growing Threat of Aedes japonicus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Aedes albopictus. J Med Entomol. (2019) 56:1745–9. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjz115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  RaghavanRKBarkerSCCobosMEBarkerDTeoEJMFoleyDHet al. Potential spatial distribution of the newly introduced longhorned tick, Haemaphysalis longicornis in North America. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:498. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37205-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  MusnoffBLCuaderaMKQBirneyMRZipperLNicholsonWAyresBet al. The first record of an established population of Amblyomma maculatum (Acari: Ixodidae) in New Jersey, USA. J Med Entomol. (2024) 61:1081–5. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjae056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  ParkerCRamirezDConnellyCR. State-wide survey of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J Vector Ecol. (2019) 44:210–5. doi: 10.1111/jvec.12351

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  RaghavanRKPetersonATCobosMEGantaRFoleyD. Current and future distribution of the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (L.) (Acari: Ixodidae) in North America. PloS One. (2019) 14:e0209082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Extreme weather - NASA science. Washington, DC: Extreme Weather (2024). Available at: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/extreme-weather/.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  American Mosquito Control Association. Mosquito Management During a Public Health Emergency. Sacramento, CA: American Mosquito Control Association (2022).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  VenkatesanP. The 2023 WHO World malaria report. Lancet Microbe. (2024) 5:e214. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(24)00016-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  RochlinINinivaggiDVBenachJL. Malaria and Lyme disease - the largest vector-borne US epidemics in the last 100 years: success and failure of public health. BMC Public Health. (2019) 19:804. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7069-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  MitchellCLKennarAVasquezYNorisKWilliamsonTMannellAet al. Notes from the field: increases in imported malaria cases — Three southern U.S. Border jurisdictions 2023. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. (2024) 73:417–9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7318a2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  PetersenLRBeardCBVisserSN. Combatting the increasing threat of vector-borne disease in the United States with a national vector-borne disease prevention and control system. Am J Trop Med Hyg. (2019) 100:242–5. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0841

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  RosenbergRLindseyNPFischerMGregoryCJHinckleyAFMeadPSet al. Vital Signs: trends in reported vectorborne disease cases — United States and territories 2004–2016. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. (2018) 67:496–501. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6717e1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  KugelerKJEarleyAMeadPSHinckleyAF. Surveillance for Lyme disease after implementation of a revised case definition — United states 2022. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. (2024) 73:118–23. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7306a1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  CDC. Data and statistics on spotted fever rickettsiosis. Atlanta, Georgia: Rocky Mt. Spotted Fever RMSF (2024). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/rocky-mountain-spotted-fever/data-research/facts-stats/index.html.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Oropouche fever, the mysterious threat. Lancet Infect Dis. (2024) 24:935. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00516-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  BalaskaSFotakisEAChaskopoulouAVontasJ. Chemical control and insecticide resistance status of sand fly vectors worldwide. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2021) 15:e0009586. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009586

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  StevensLDornPLSchmidtJOKlotzJHLuceroDKlotzSA. Kissing Bugs. The Vectors of Chagas. In: Advances in Parasitology. London, United Kingdom: Elsevier (2011). p. 169–92. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385863-4.00008-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  FournierP-ERaoultD. 66 - Epidemic Louse-Borne Typhus. In: RyanETHillDRSolomonTAronsonNEEndyTP, editors. Hunter’s Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Diseases. Elsevier, London (2020). p. 577–9. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-55512-8.00066-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  AdrionERAucottJLemkeKWWeinerJP. Health care costs, utilization and patterns of care following Lyme disease. PloS One. (2015) 10:1–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116767

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  BarrettADT. Economic burden of West Nile virus in the United States. Am Soc Trop Med Hyg. (2014) 90:389–90. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  De RooAMVondelingGTBoerMMurrayKPostmaMJ. The global health and economic burden of chikungunya from 2011 to 2020: a model-driven analysis on the impact of an emerging vector-borne disease. BMJ Glob Health. (2024) 9:e016648. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016648

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  FeldsteinLREllisEMRowhani-RahbarAHennesseyMJStaplesJEHalloranMEet al. Estimating the cost of illness and burden of disease associated with the 2014–2015 chikungunya outbreak in the U.S. Virgin Islands PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2019) 13:e0007563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007563

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  SelfSWPulaskiCNMcMahanCSBrownDAYabsleyMJGettingsJR. Regional and local temporal trends in the prevalence of canine heartworm infection in the contiguous United States: 2012–2018. Parasitol Vectors. (2019) 12:380. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3633-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LittleSEHeiseSRBlagburnBLCallisterSMMeadPS. Lyme borreliosis in dogs and humans in the USA. Trends Parasitol. (2010) 26:213–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2010.01.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  PaddockCDBrennerOVaidCBoydDBBergJMJosephRJet al. Short report: Concurrent Rocky Mountain spotted fever in a dog and its owner. Am J Trop Med Hyg. (2002) 66:197–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2002.66.197

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  MarcelinoIDe AlmeidaAMVentosaMPruneauLMeyerDFMartinezDet al. Tick-borne diseases in cattle: Applications of proteomics to develop new generation vaccines. J Proteomics. (2012) 75:4232–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.03.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  AlessandraTSantoC. Tick-borne diseases in sheep and goats: Clinical and diagnostic aspects. Small Rumin. Res. (2012) 106:S6–S11. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.04.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  GrahamOHHourriganJL. Eradication programs for the arthropod parasites of livestocks. J Med Entomol. (1977) 13:629–58. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/13.6.629

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Pérez de LeonAATeelPDAuclairANMessengerMTGuerreroFDSchusterGet al. Integrated strategy for sustainable cattle fever tick eradication in USA is required to mitigate the impact of global change. Front Physiol. (2012) 3:195. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2012.00195

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  BockRJacksonLDe VosAJorgensenW. Babesiosis of cattle. Parasitology. (2004) 129:1–17. doi: 10.1017/S0031182004005190

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MichaudKIversonGReiskindMHKearneyGRichardsSL. Brief review of Japanese encephalitis virus: recommendations related to North Carolina swine farms and wider implications for swine farming. Parasitologia. (2022) 2:302–12. doi: 10.3390/parasitologia2040025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Disease alert: equine encephalitis (EEE/WEE/VEE) (2024). Available online at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/equine/encephalitides (Accessed August 23, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  CoxAStewartAJ. Insect bite hypersensitivity in horses: causes, diagnosis, scoring and new therapies. Animals. (2023) 13:2514. doi: 10.3390/ani13152514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  MansBJGotheRNeitzAWH. Biochemical perspectives on paralysis and other forms of toxicoses caused by ticks. Parasitology. (2004) 129:S95–S111. doi: 10.1017/S0031182003004670

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  BigginsDEEadsDA. Prairie dogs, persistent plague, flocking fleas, and pernicious positive feedback. Front Vet Sci. (2019) 6:75. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  FallMDiarraMFallAGBalenghienTSeckMTBouyerJet al. Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) midges, the vectors of African horse sickness virus – a host/vector contact study in the Niayes area of Senegal. Parasitol Vectors. (2015) 8:39. doi: 10.1186/s13071-014-0624-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Jiménez-CabelloLUtrilla-TrigoSLorenzoGOrtegoJCalvo-PinillaE. Epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus: current knowledge and emerging perspectives. Microorganisms. (2023) 11:1339. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11051339

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  UribasterraMGOrangeJPDinhETNPetersCPetersRMGoodfriendOet al. Epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus and bluetongue virus seroprevalence in wild white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Florida, USA. J Wildl. Dis. (2020) 56:928–32. doi: 10.7589/2019-10-263

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  FujitaRTachiTHinoMNagataKSaikiMInumaruMet al. Blowflies are potential vector for avian influenza virus at enzootic area in Japan. Sci Rep. (2024) 14:10285. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61026-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. H5 bird flu: current situation. Atlanta, Georgia: Avian Influenza Bird Flu (2024). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/.

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  American Mosquito Control Association. Best Practices for Integrated Mosquito Management. Sacramento, CA: American Mosquito Control Association (2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  GublerDJClarkGG. Community involvement in the control of Aedes aegypti. Acta Trop. (1996) 61:169–79. doi: 10.1016/0001-706X(95)00103-L

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Trout FryxellRTCamponovoMSmithBButefishKRosenbergJMAndsagerJLet al. Development of a community-driven mosquito surveillance program for vectors of La Crosse virus to educate, inform, and empower a community. Insects. (2022) 13:164. doi: 10.3390/insects13020164

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  WinchPKendallCGublerD. Effectiveness of community participation in vector-borne disease control. Health Policy Plan. (1992) 7:342–51. doi: 10.1093/heapol/7.4.342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Dye-BraumullerKCGordonJRMcCoyKJohnsonDDinglasanRNolanMS. Riding the wave: reactive vector-borne disease policy renders the United States vulnerable to outbreaks and insecticide resistance. J Med Entomol. (2022) 59:401–11. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjab219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Dye-BraumullerKCGordonJRJohnsonDMorrisseyJMcCoyKDinglasanRRet al. Needs assessment of Southeastern United States vector control agencies: capacity improvement is greatly needed to prevent the next vector-borne disease outbreak. Trop Med Infect Dis. (2022) 7:73. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7050073

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  FournetFJourdainFBonnetEDegrooteSRiddeV. Effective surveillance systems for vector-borne diseases in urban settings and translation of the data into action: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. (2018) 7:99. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0473-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  SpielmanA. The role of surveillance in interventions directed against vector-borne disease. Ecosyst Health. (1999) 5:141–5. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-0992.1999.09923.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  WilsonALCourtenayOKelly-HopeLAScottTWTakkenWTorrSJet al. The importance of vector control for the control and elimination of vector-borne diseases. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2020) 14:e0007831. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007831

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  StaffordKCIIIWilliamsSCMolaeiG. Integrated pest management in controlling ticks and tick-associated diseases. J Integr Pest Manage. (2017) 8:1–7. doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmx018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  EisenL. Personal protection measures to prevent tick bites in the United States: Knowledge gaps, challenges, and opportunities. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. (2022) 13:101944. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2022.101944

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  GouldLHNelsonRSGriffithKSHayesEBPiesmanJMeadPSet al. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding Lyme disease prevention among Connecticut residents 1999–2004. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. (2008) 8:769–76. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2007.0221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  MuteroCMOkoyoCGirmaMMwangangiJKibeLNg’ang’aPet al. Evaluating the impact of larviciding with Bti and community education and mobilization as supplementary integrated vector management interventions for malaria control in Kenya and Ethiopia. Malar. J. (2020) 19:390. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03464-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  GibbsSEJGibbsEPJ. The Historical, Present, and Future Role of Veterinarians in One Health. In: MackenzieJSJeggoMDaszakPRichtJA, editors. One Health: The Human-Animal-Environment Interfaces in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012). p. 31–47. doi: 10.1007/82_2012_259

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  SakamotoJM. Progress, challenges, and the role of public engagement to improve tick-borne disease literacy. Curr Opin Insect Sci. (2018) 28:81–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2018.05.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  GonzálezMADuvalletGMorelDDe BlasIBarrioERuiz-ArrondoI. An integrated pest management strategy approach for the management of the stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera: muscidae). Insects. (2024) 15:222. doi: 10.3390/insects15040222

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  BanksHJ. Physical control of insects - recent developments. Aust J Entomol. (1976) 15:89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-6055.1976.tb02079.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  AcheeNLGouldFPerkinsTAReinerRCMorrisonACRitchieSAet al. A critical assessment of vector control for dengue prevention. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2015) 9:e0003655. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003655

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  CorbelVNostenFThanispongKLuxemburgerCKongmeeMChareonviriyaphapT. Challenges and prospects for dengue and malaria control in Thailand, Southeast Asia. Trends Parasitol. (2013) 29:623–33. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2013.09.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HarrisJWRichardsSLAndersonA. Emergency mosquito control on a selected area in eastern North Carolina after hurricane irene. Environ Health Insights. (2014) 8s2:EHI.S16001. doi: 10.4137/EHI.S16001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  OkumuF. The fabric of life: what if mosquito nets were durable and widely available but insecticide-free? Malar. J. (2020) 19:260. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03321-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  EisenLDolanMC. Evidence for personal protective measures to reduce human contact with blacklegged ticks and for environmentally based control methods to suppress host-seeking blacklegged ticks and reduce infection with Lyme disease spirochetes in tick vectors and rodent reservoirs. J Med Entomol. (2016) 53:1063–92. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjw103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  ConnallyNPRoseDABreunerNEProseRFleshmanACThompsonKet al. Impact of wearing and washing/drying of permethrin-treated clothing on their contact irritancy and toxicity for nymphal Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) ticks. J Med Entomol. (2019) 56:199–214. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjy138

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  DaltroyLHPhillipsCLewRWrightEShadickNALiangMH. A controlled trial of a novel primary prevention program for Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses. Health Educ Behav. (2007) 34:531–42. doi: 10.1177/1090198106294646

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  MalouinRWinchPLeontsiniEGlassGSimonDHayesEBet al. Longitudinal evaluation of an educational intervention for preventing tick bites in an area with endemic Lyme disease in Baltimore County, Maryland. Am J Epidemiol. (2003) 157:1039–51. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg076

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  ArunachalamNTyagiBKSamuelMKrishnamoorthiRManavalanRTewariSCet al. Community-based control of Aedes aegypti by adoption of eco-health methods in Chennai City, India. Pathog Glob Health. (2012) 106:488–96. doi: 10.1179/2047773212Y.0000000056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  Bartlett-HealyKHamiltonGHealySCrepeauTUnluIFarajollahiAet al. Source reduction behavior as an independent measurement of the impact of a public health education campaign in an integrated vector management program for the Asian tiger mosquito. Int J Environ Res Public. Health. (2011) 8:1358–67. doi: 10.3390/ijerph8051358

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  BassoCGarcía Da RosaELairihoyRCafferaRMRocheIGonzálezCet al. Scaling up of an innovative intervention to reduce risk of dengue, Chikungunya, and Zika transmission in Uruguay in the framework of an intersectoral approach with and without community participation. Am J Trop Med Hyg. (2017) 97:1428–36. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0061

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  BonnetEFournetFBenmarhniaTOuedraogoSDabiréRRiddeV. Impact of a community-based intervention on Aedes aegypti and its spatial distribution in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Infect Dis Poverty. (2020) 9:61. doi: 10.1186/s40249-020-00675-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  GarrosCBouyerJTakkenWSmallegangeRC eds. Pests and vector-borne diseases in the livestock industry: Ecology and control of vector-borne diseases. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers (2018). doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-863-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  GilbertMConcheddaGVan BoeckelTPCinardiGLinardCNicolasGet al. Income disparities and the global distribution of intensively farmed chicken and pigs. PloS One. (2015) 10:e0133381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133381

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  DeepthiRNaresh KumarSJPrasanna KamathBTRajeshwariH. Participatory school health education on vector-borne diseases: Engaging children as change agents. Int J Health Promot. Educ. (2014) 52:68–77. doi: 10.1080/14635240.2013.859344

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  GessaJAAGonzalezRF. Application of environmental management principles in the program for eradication of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linneus 1762) in the republic of Cuba 1984. PAHO Bull. (1986) 20:186–93.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  Onyango-OumaWAagaard-HansenJJensenBB. The potential of schoolchildren as health change agents in rural western Kenya. Soc Sci Med. (2005) 61:1711–22. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  RajuAK. Community mobilization in Aedes aegypti control programme by source reduction in Peri-Urban district of Lautoka, Viti Levu, Fiji islands. Dengue Bull. (2003) 27:149–55.

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  CharlwoodJDParuRDagoroH. Raised platforms reduce mosquito bites. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. (1984) 78:141–2. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(84)90204-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  DanielsTJFishDSchwartzI. Reduced abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) and Lyme disease risk by deer exclusion. J Med Entomol. (1993) 30:1043–9. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/30.6.1043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  GilliesMTWilkesTJ. The vertical distribution of some West African mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) over open farmland in a freshwater area of the Gambia. Bull Entomol Res. (1976) 66:5–15. doi: 10.1017/S0007485300006441

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KampangoABragançaMSousaBDCharlwoodJD. Netting barriers to prevent mosquito entry into houses in southern Mozambique: a pilot study. Malar. J. (2013) 12:99. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-99

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  LindsaySWJannehLM. Preliminary field trials of personal protection against mosquitoes in the Gambia using deet or permethrin in soap, compared with other methods. Med Vet Entomol. (1989) 3:97–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1989.tb00481.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  SnowWF. The vertical distribution of flying mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) in West African savanna. Bull Entomol Res. (1975) 65:269–77. doi: 10.1017/S0007485300005952

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  FischhoffIRKeesingFPendletonJDePietroDTeatorMDuerrSTKet al. Assessing effectiveness of recommended residential yard management measures against ticks. J Med Entomol. (2019) 56:1420–7. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjz077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  GregoryNFernandezMPDiuk-WasserM. Risk of tick-borne pathogen spillover into urban yards in New York City. Parasitol Vectors. (2022) 15:288. doi: 10.1186/s13071-022-05416-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  LinskeMAWilliamsSC. Evaluation of landscaping and vegetation management to suppress host-seeking Ixodes scapularis (Ixodida: Ixodidae) nymphs on residential properties in Connecticut, USA. Environ Entomol. (2024) 53:nvae007. doi: 10.1093/ee/nvae007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  StaffordKCIII. Tick Management Handbook - A integrated guide for homeowners, pest control operators, and public health officials for the prevention of tick-associated disease. New Haven, CT: Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (2004).

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  HennessyCHildK. Are Virginia opossums really ecological traps for ticks? Groundtruthing laboratory observations. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. (2021) 12:101780. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101780

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  OstfeldRSPriceAHornbostelVLBenjaminMAKeesingF. Controlling ticks and tick-borne zoonoses with biological and chemical agents. BioScience. (2006) 56:383. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0383:CTATZW]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  WaltonWE. Larvivorous fish including Gambusia. J Am Mosq. Control Assoc. (2007) 23:184–220. doi: 10.2987/8756-971X(2007)23[184:LFIG]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  WhiteALCumbieABrinkerhoffRJHynesWLGaffHD. Release the hens: a study on the complexities of guinea fowl as tick control. J Med Entomol. (2024) 61:410–7. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjad167

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  Environmental Protection Agency. Bti for mosquito control. Washington, DC: U. S. Environ. Prot. Agency (2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/mosquitocontrol/bti-mosquito-control.

  • Google Scholar

• 118

  GrayEWFuscoR. Microbial control of black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) with Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Israelensis. In: LaceyLA, editor. Microbial Control of Insect and Mite Pests. Elsevier, London, United Kingdom (2017). p. 367–77.

  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LaceyLEscaffreHPhilipponBSeketeliAGuilletP. Large river treatment with Bacillus thuringiensis (H-14) for the control of Simulium damnosum sl in the Onchocerciasis Control Programme. Tropenmed. Parasitol. (1982) 33:97–101.

  • Google Scholar

• 120

  CafarchiaCPellegrinoRRomanoVFriuliMDemitriCPombiMet al. Delivery and effectiveness of entomopathogenic fungi for mosquito and tick control: Current knowledge and research challenges. Acta Trop. (2022) 234:106627. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2022.106627

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  GinsbergHSLebrunRAHeyerKZhiouaE. Potential nontarget effects of Metarhizium anisopliae (Deuteromycetes) used for biological control of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). Environ Entomol. (2002) 31:1191–6. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X-31.6.1191

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  HornbostelVLOstfeldRSZhiouaEBenjaminMA. Sublethal Effects of Metarhizium anisopliae (Deuteromycetes) on Engorged Larval, Nymphal, and Adult Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol. (2004) 41:922–9. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-41.5.922

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  KeesingFMowrySBremerWDuerrSEvansASJr.FischhoffIRet al. Effects of tick-control interventions on tick abundance, human encounters with ticks, and incidence of tick-borne diseases in residential neighborhoods. Emerg Infect Dis. (2022) 28:957–66. doi: 10.3201/eid2805.211146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  KirklandBHWestwoodGSKeyhaniNO. Pathogenicity of Entomopathogenic Fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae to Ixodidae Tick Species Dermacentor variabilis, Rhipicephalus sanguineus, and Ixodes scapularis. J Med Entomol. (2004) 41:705–11. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-41.4.705

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MascarinGMJaronskiST. The production and uses of Beauveria bassiana as a microbial insecticide. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. (2016) 32:177. doi: 10.1007/s11274-016-2131-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  WilliamsSCStaffordKCMolaeiGLinskeMA. Integrated Control of Nymphal Ixodes scapularis : Effectiveness of White-Tailed Deer Reduction, the Entomopathogenic Fungus Metarhizium anisopliae, and Fipronil-Based Rodent Bait Boxes. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. (2018) 18:55–64. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2017.2146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  DeemSLPerryBDKatendeJMMcDermottJJMahanSMMalooSHet al. Variations in prevalence rates of tick-borne diseases in Zebu cattle by agroecological zone: implications for East Coast fever immunization. Prev Vet Med. (1993) 16:171–87. doi: 10.1016/0167-5877(93)90064-Z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  KambalSTijjaniAIbrahimSAEAhmedMAMwacharoJMHanotteO. Candidate signatures of positive selection for environmental adaptation in indigenous African cattle: A review. Anim. Genet. (2023) 54:689–708. doi: 10.1111/age.13353

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  NorvalRAIPerryBDYoungAS. The epidemiology of theileriosis in Africa. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press Limited (1992).

  • Google Scholar

• 130

  GarroodWTCuberPWillisKBernardiniFPageNMHaghighat-KhahRE. Driving down malaria transmission with engineered gene drives. Front Genet. (2022) 13:891218. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.891218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  FranzénMFrancioliYAsklingJKindvallOJohanssonVForsmanA. Differences in phenology, daily timing of activity, and associations of temperature utilization with survival in three threatened butterflies. Sci Rep. (2022) 12:7534. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10676-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  ZhangDMaigaHLiYBakhoumMTWangGSunYet al. Mating harassment may boost the effectiveness of the sterile insect technique for Aedes mosquitoes. Nat Commun. (2024) 15:1980. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-46268-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  SchillerAAllenMCoffeyJFikeACarballoF. Updated Methods for the Production of Toxorhynchites rutilus septentrionalis (Diptera, Culicidae) for Use as Biocontrol Agent Against Container Breeding Pest Mosquitoes in Harris County, Texas. J Insect Sci. (2019) 19:1–6. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iez011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  StaffordKCIIIDenicolaAJKilpatrickHJ. Reduced Abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) and the Tick Parasitoid Ixodiphagus hookeri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) with Reduction of White-Tailed Deer. J Med Entomol. (2003) 40:642–52. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-40.5.642

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  StaffordKCIIIDenicolaAJMagnarelliLA. Presence of Ixodiphagus hookeri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) in Two Connecticut Populations of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol. (1996) 33:183–8. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/33.1.183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  StaffordKCWilliamsSCVan OosterwijkJGLinskeMAZatechkaSRicherLMet al. Field evaluation of a novel oral reservoir-targeted vaccine against Borrelia burgdorferi utilizing an inactivated whole-cell bacterial antigen expression vehicle. Exp Appl Acarol. (2020) 80:257–68. doi: 10.1007/s10493-019-00458-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  WilliamsSCVan OosterwijkJGLinskeMAZatechkaSRicherLMPrzybyszewskiCet al. Administration of an orally delivered substrate targeting a mammalian zoonotic pathogen reservoir population: novel application and biomarker analysis. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. (2020) 20:603–12. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2019.2612

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  ZatechkaS. Reservoir-targeted vaccines as a one health path to prevent zoonotic disease. Int J Vaccines Vaccin. (2016) 2:14–2. doi: 10.15406/ijvv.2016.02.00049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  BrownJEMillerTMMachtingerET. Tick tubes reduce blacklegged tick burdens on white-footed mice in Pennsylvania, USA. J Appl Entomol. (2020) 144:542–5. doi: 10.26207/n9y2-vk67

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  GreenKDTiffinHSBrownJEBurgessERMachtingerET. Evaluation of tick control tube month of placement and modifications to increase visitation by small mammals. Ecosphere. (2022) 13:1–12. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.4155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  PochéDMWagnerDHawthorneNTseveenjavBPochéRM. Development of a low-dose fipronil deer feed: Bait-screening and range-finding to determine the optimal formulation to control blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) feeding on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). J Vector Ecol. (2023) 48:103–12. doi: 10.52707/1081-1710-48.2.103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  PochéDMWagnerDGreenKSmithZHawthorneNTseveenjavBet al. Development of a low-dose fipronil deer feed: evaluation of efficacy against two medically important tick species parasitizing white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) under pen conditions. Parasitol Vectors. (2023) 16:1–20. doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05689-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  TiffinHSGreenKDBurgessERMachtingerET. Maximizing and sustaining the efficacy of tick tubes for management of Ixodes scapularis through optimized deployment strategies. J Med Entomol. (2024) 61:1459–69. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjae114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  TuorinskyEVMachtingerET. Behavioral inhibition of the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) when exposed to commercial equine fly repellents. J Econ Entomol. (2020) 113:518–26. doi: 10.1093/jee/toz243

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  American Mosquito Control Association. AMCA’s training center. Sacramento, California: Am. Mosq. Control Assoc (2023). Available at: https://www.mosquito.org/webinars-training/.

  • Google Scholar

• 146

  BargarTAJiangY. Adult mosquito and butterfly exposure to permethrin and relative risk following ULV sprays from a truck-mounted sprayer. Arch Environ Contam. Toxicol. (2024) 86:25–36. doi: 10.1007/s00244-023-01022-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  Maheu-GirouxMCastroMC. Cost-effectiveness of larviciding for urban malaria control in Tanzania. Malar. J. (2014) 13:477. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-477

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  VigodnyABen AharonMWharton-SmithAFialkoffYHouri-YafinABragançaFet al. Digitally managed larviciding as a cost-effective intervention for urban malaria: operational lessons from a pilot in São Tomé and Príncipe guided by the Zzapp system. Malar. J. (2023) 22:114. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04543-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  CelliA. The new preventative treatment of malaria in Latium: collected papers on malaria, Angelo Celli 1899–1912. Lond Sch. Hyg Trop Med. (1901).

  • Google Scholar

• 150

  LindsaySWEmersonPMCharlwoodJD. Reducing malaria by mosquito-proofing houses. Trends Parasitol. (2002) 18:510–4. doi: 10.1016/S1471-4922(02)02382-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  Abong’oBGimnigJEOmokeDOchomoEWalkerED. Screening eaves of houses reduces indoor mosquito density in rural, western Kenya. Malar. J. (2022) 21:377. doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04397-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  MasseboFLindtjørnB. The effect of screening doors and windows on indoor density of Anopheles arabiensis in south-west Ethiopia: a randomized trial. Malar. J. (2013) 12:319. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-319

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  TustingLSIppolitoMMWilleyBAKleinschmidtIDorseyGGoslingRDet al. The evidence for improving housing to reduce malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Malar. J. (2015) 14:209. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0724-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  FourniéGPfeifferDUBendreyR. Early animal farming and zoonotic disease dynamics: modelling brucellosis transmission in Neolithic goat populations. R Soc Open Sci. (2017) 4:160943. doi: 10.1098/rsos.160943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  GregerM. Industrial animal agriculture’s role in the emergence and spread of disease. In: D’SilvaJWebsterJ, editors. The Meat Crisis. London: Routledge (2017). p. 217–27.

  • Google Scholar

• 156

  MilnerGR. Early agriculture’s toll on human health. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2019) 116:13721–3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908960116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  Environmental Protection Agency. DDT - A brief history and status. Washington, DC: U. S. Environ. Prot. Agency (2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status.

  • Google Scholar

• 158

  DavisRSPetersonRKMacedoPA. An ecological risk assessment for insecticides used in adult mosquito management. Integr Environ Assess. Manage. (2007) 3:373–82. doi: 10.1002/ieam.5630030308

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  RinkevichFDMargottaJWPokhrelVWalkerTWVaethRHHoffmanWCet al. Limited impacts of truck-based ultra-low-volume applications of mosquito adulticides on mortality in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Bull Entomol Res. (2017) 107:724–33. doi: 10.1017/S0007485317000347

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SchleierJJIIIPetersonRKD. A refined aquatic ecological risk assessment for a pyrethroid insecticide used for adult mosquito management. Environ Toxicol Chem. (2013) 32:948–53. doi: 10.1002/etc.2126

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SchleierJJIIIPetersonRKD. Deposition and air concentrations of permethrin and naled used for adult mosquito management. Arch Environ Contam. Toxicol. (2010) 58:105–11. doi: 10.1007/s00244-009-9353-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  MolaeiGAndreadisTGArmstrongPMThomasMCDeschampsTCuebas-IncleEet al. Vector-host interactions and epizootiology of eastern equine encephalitis virus in Massachusetts. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. (2013) 13:312–23. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2012.1099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  ReisenW. Ecology of West Nile virus in North America. Viruses. (2013) 5:2079–105. doi: 10.3390/v5092079

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  WoodCLLaffertyKD. Biodiversity and disease: a synthesis of ecological perspectives on Lyme disease transmission. Trends Ecol Evol. (2013) 28:239–47. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  AuplishARajEBooijinkYDe BaloghKPeyreMTaylorKet al. Current evidence of the economic value of One Health initiatives: A systematic literature review. One Health. (2024) 18:100755. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100755

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  AxtellRCArendsJJ. Ecology and management of arthropod pests of poultry. Annu Rev Entomol. (1990) 35:101–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.000533

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  González-MoralesMAThomsonAEYeattsJEnomotoHHaijaASantangeloRGet al. Pharmacokinetics of fluralaner as a systemic drug to control infestations of the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius, in poultry facilities. Parasitol Vectors. (2023) 16:333. doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05962-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  González-MoralesMAThomsonAEPetritzOACrespoRHaijaASantangeloRGet al. Systemic veterinary drugs for control of the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius, in poultry farms. Parasitol Vectors. (2022) 15:431. doi: 10.1186/s13071-022-05555-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  PasayCJYakobLMeredithHRStewartRMillsPCDekkersMHet al. Treatment of pigs with endectocides as a complementary tool for combating malaria transmission by Anopheles farauti (s.s.) in Papua New Guinea. Parasitol Vectors. (2019) 12:124. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3392-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  GinsbergHS. Lyme disease and conservation. Conserv Biol. (1994) 8:343–53. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020343.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  JordanRASchulzeTL. Availability and nature of commercial tick control services in three Lyme disease endemic states. J Med Entomol. (2020) 57:807–14. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjz215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  CapraraADe Oliveira LimaJWRocha PeixotoACVasconcelos MottaCMSoares NobreJMSommerfeldJet al. Entomological impact and social participation in dengue control: a cluster randomized trial in Fortaleza, Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. (2015) 109:99–105. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/tru187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  ChuangH-YHuangJ-JHuangY-CLiuP-LChiuY-WWangM-C. The use of fine nets to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes on dry farmland in southern Taiwan. Acta Trop. (2009) 110:35–7. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  KusumawathiePHDYapabandaraAMGMJayasooriyaGAJSKWalisingheC. Effectiveness of net covers on water storage tanks for the control of dengue vectors in Sri Lanka. J Vector-Borne Dis. (2009) 46:160–3.

  • Google Scholar

• 175

  AbeyewickremeWWickremasingheARKarunatilakeKSommerfeldJAxelK. Community mobilization and household level waste management for dengue vector control in Gampaha district of Sri Lanka; an intervention study. Pathog Glob Health. (2012) 106:479–87. doi: 10.1179/2047773212Y.0000000060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  BassoCGarcia Da RosaERomeroSGonzalezCLairihoyRRocheIet al. Improved dengue fever prevention through innovative intervention methods in the city of Salto, Uruguay. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. (2015) 109:134–42. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/tru183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  ForsythJEKempinskyAPitchikHOAlbertsCJMutukuFMKibeLet al. Larval source reduction with a purpose: Designing and evaluating a household- and school-based intervention in coastal Kenya. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2022) 16:e0010199. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010199

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  GoolsbyJAMaestasLPGarciaRMayMLohmeyerKHPicansoJet al. Preventative methods to reduce the spread of cattle fever ticks on wildlife and protect local endangered species in South Texas. Southwest. Entomol. (2023) 48:289–302. doi: 10.3958/059.048.0201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  HayesEBPiesmanJ. How can we prevent Lyme disease? N Engl J Med. (2003) 348:2424–30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra021397

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  MaupinGOFishDZultowskyJCamposEGPiesmanJ. Landscape ecology of Lyme disease in a residential area of Westchester County, New York. Am J Epidemiol. (1991) 133:1105–13. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115823

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  McKayRTalbotBSlatculescuAStoneAKulkarniMA. Woodchip borders at the forest ecotone as an environmental control measure to reduce questing tick density along recreational trails in Ottawa, Canada. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. (2020) 11:101361. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.101361

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  PatricanLAAllanSA. Laboratory evaluation of desiccants and insecticidal soap applied to various substrates to control the deer tick Ixodes scapularis. Med Vet Entomol. (1995) 9:293–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1995.tb00137.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  SchulzeTLJordanRA. Assessment and management of vector tick populations in New Jersey. Hightstown NJ: Freeh. Townsh. Health Dep (2006).

  • Google Scholar

• 184

  ClymerBCHowellDEHairJA. Environmental alteration in recreational areas by mechanical and chemical treatment as a means of lone star tick control. J Econ Entomol. (1970) 63:504–9. doi: 10.1093/jee/63.2.504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  FalcoRCFishD. Horizontal movement of adult Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) attracted to CO₂-baited traps. J Med Entomol. (1991) 28:726–9. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/28.5.726

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  GinsbergHSEwingCP. Comparison of flagging, walking, trapping, and collecting from hosts as sampling methods for northern deer ticks, Ixodes dammini, and lone-star ticks, Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae). Exp Appl Acarol. (1989) 7:313–22. doi: 10.1007/BF01197925

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  GoodmanJLDennisDTSonenshineDE. Tick-borne diseases of humans. Washington, USA: ASM Press (2005).

  • Google Scholar

• 188

  HairJAHowellDE. Lone star ticks; their biology and control in Ozark recreation areas Vol. 679. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. B (1970).

  • Google Scholar

• 189

  HochALBarkerRWHairJA. Measurement of physical parameters to determine the suitability of modified woodlots as lone star tick habitat. J Med Entomol. (1971) 8:725–30. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/8.6.725

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  MountGA. Control of the lone star tick in Oklahoma parks through vegetative management. J Econ Entomol. (1981) 74:173–5. doi: 10.1093/jee/74.2.173

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  WhiteAGaffH. Review: Application of tick control technologies for blacklegged, lone star, and American dog ticks. J Integr Pest Manage. (2018) 9:1–10. doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmy006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  FonsecaDMUnluICrepeauTFarajollahiAHealySPBartlett-HealyKet al. Area-wide management of Aedes albopictus. Part 2: Gauging the efficacy of traditional integrated pest control measures against urban container mosquitoes. Pest Manage Sci. (2013) 69:1351–61. doi: 10.1002/ps.3511

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  Espinoza-GomezF. Educational campaign versus malathion spraying for the control of Aedes aegypti in Colima, Mexico. J Epidemiol. Community Health. (2002) 56:148–52. doi: 10.1136/jech.56.2.148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  HookSANelsonCAMeadPS. U.S. public’s experience with ticks and tick-borne diseases: Results from national HealthStyles surveys. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. (2015) 6:483–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.03.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  RiveraEPArrivillagaMRJuárezJGDe Urioste-StoneSMBerganzaEPenningtonPM. Adoption of community-based strategies for sustainable vector control and prevention. BMC Public Health. (2023) 23:1834. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16516-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  ChouvencT. How do termite baits work? implication of subterranean termite colony demography on the successful implementation of baits. J Econ Entomol. (2024), toae243. doi: 10.1093/jee/toae243

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  Van Den BergH. Reducing vector-borne disease by empowering farmers in integrated vector management. Bull World Health Organ. (2007) 85:561–6. doi: 10.2471/BLT.06.035600

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  Díaz-GonzálezEEDanis-LozanoRPeñalozaG. Schools as centers for health educational initiatives, health behavior research and risk behavior for dengue infection in school children and community members: a systematic review. Health Educ Res. (2020) 35:376–95. doi: 10.1093/her/cyaa019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  LaBeaudADGlinkaAKippesCKingCH. School-based health promotion for mosquito-borne disease prevention in children. J Pediatr. (2009) 155:590–592.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  Parker-CrockettCRampoldSGalindoSBunchJCYoderHAndenoroAet al. Fight the bite: implementation of mosquito-based curriculum in elementary, middle, and high schools in Florida. J Agric Educ. (2022) 63:37–51. doi: 10.5032/jae.2022.02037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  ShadickNAZibitMJNardoneEDeMariaAIannacconeCKCuiJ. A school-based intervention to increase Lyme disease preventive measures among elementary school-aged children. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. (2016) 16:507–15. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2016.1942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  HassellJMBegonMWardMJFèvreEM. Urbanization and disease emergence: dynamics at the wildlife–livestock–human interface. Trends Ecol Evol. (2017) 32:55–67. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  KappesATozooneyiTShakilGRaileyAFMcIntyreKMMayberryDEet al. Livestock health and disease economics: a scoping review of selected literature. Front Vet Sci. (2023) 10:1168649. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1168649

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  Van BoeckelTPBrowerCGilbertMGrenfellBTLevinSARobinsonTPet al. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2015) 112:5649–54. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503141112

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  MulchandaniRWangYGilbertMVan BoeckelTP. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: 2020 to 2030. PloS Glob Public Health. (2023) 3:e0001305. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001305

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  ScialabbaNE-H. Chapter 3 - Livestock xenobiotics and zoonoses. In: El-Hage ScialabbaN, editor. Managing Healthy Livestock Production and Consumption. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom (2022). p. 45–59. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-823019-0.00013-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  De KeersmaeckerSWartbergerA. Veterinary medicines: New rules to promote animal health and fight antimicrobial resistance now apply. Brussel, Belgium: Eur. Comm (2022). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_663.

  • Google Scholar

• 208

  MaronDFSmithTJNachmanKE. Restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production: an international regulatory and economic survey. Glob Health. (2013) 9:48. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-9-48

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  WaluszewskiACintiAPernaA. Major or minor? The EU food animal antibiotic policy and the varied use. J Bus. Ind Mark. (2024) 39:145–59. doi: 10.1108/JBIM-11-2022-0521

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  SinghBBhatARaviK. Antibiotics misuse and antimicrobial resistance development in agriculture: A global challenge. Environ Health. (2024) 2:618–22. doi: 10.1021/envhealth.4c00094

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  BeberCLAragrandeMCanaliM. Policies and strategies to control antimicrobial resistance in livestock production: A comparative analysis of national action plans in European Union Member States. Health Policy. (2025) 152:105238. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105238

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  PyzikEUrban-ChmielRHermanKNowaczekA. Solutions limiting the use of antibiotics in poultry production in Poland and other European Union countries. Anim. Sci Genet. (2024) 20:41–53. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0054.6542

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  van OosterwijkJGWikelSK. Resistance to ticks and the path to anti-tick and transmission blocking vaccines. Vaccines. (2021) 9:725. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9070725

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  AllanBFTallisHChaplin-KramerRHuckettSKowalVAMusengeziJet al. Can integrating wildlife and livestock enhance ecosystem services in central Kenya? Front Ecol Environ. (2017) 15:328–35. doi: 10.1002/fee.1501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  KeesingFBrunnerJDuerrSKillileaMLoGiudiceKSchmidtKet al. Hosts as ecological traps for the vector of Lyme disease. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. (2009) 276:3911–9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  StringerAPLinklaterW. Everything in moderation: principles of parasite control for wildlife conservation. BioScience. (2014) 64:932–7. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu135

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  van den BergHDa Silva BezerraHSAl-EryaniSChandaENagpalBNKnoxTBet al. Recent trends in global insecticide use for disease vector control and potential implications for resistance management. Sci Rep. (2021) 11:23867. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03367-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  World Health Organization. Dengue and severe dengue. Geneva, Switzerland: Dengue Sev. Dengue (2024). Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue.

  • Google Scholar

• 219

  World Health Organization. World Chagas disease day 2023. Geneva, Switzerland: Key Message (2023). Available at: https://www.who.int/campaigns/world-chagas-disease-day/2023/key-messages.

  • Google Scholar

• 220

  World Health Organization. Leishmaniasis. Geneva, Switzerland: Leishmaniasis (2023). Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/leishmaniasis.

  • Google Scholar

• 221

  World Health Organization. Malaria. Geneva, Switzerland: Fact Sheet Malaria (2023). Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria.

  • Google Scholar

• 222

  Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles. Washington, DC: U. S. Environ. Prot. Agency (2023). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/integrated-pest-management-ipm-principles.

  • Google Scholar

• 223

  World Health Organization. Global Strategic Framework for Integrated Vector Management. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2004).

  • Google Scholar

• 224

  PecenkaJRIngwellLLFosterREKrupkeCHKaplanI. IPM reduces insecticide applications by 95% while maintaining or enhancing crop yields through wild pollinator conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2021) 118:e2108429118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2108429118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  PalmerRWPalmerAR. Impacts of repeated applications of Bacillus thuringiensis var. Israelensis de Barjac and temephos, used in blackfly (Diptera: Simuliidae) control, on macroinvertebrates in the middle Orange River, South Africa. South. Afr. J Aquat. Sci. (1995) 21:35–55. doi: 10.1080/10183469.1995.9631361

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  YaméogoLReshVHMolyneuxDH. Control of river blindness in West Africa: case history of biodiversity in a disease control program. EcoHealth. (2004) 1:172–83. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0016-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  EsterlyATAlemayehuDRusmiselBBusamJSheltonTLSebayTet al. Culex erythrothorax (Diptera: Culicidae): Activity periods, insecticide susceptibility and control in California (USA). PloS One. (2020) 15:e0228835. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228835

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  GodseyMSBurkhalterKDeloreyMSavageHM. Seasonality and time of host-seeking activity of Culex tarsalis and floodwater aedes in Northern Colorado 2006–2007 ¹. J Am Mosq. Control Assoc. (2010) 26:148–59. doi: 10.2987/09-5966.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  ReddyMRLeporeTJPollackRJKiszewskiAESpielmanAReiterP. Early evening questing and oviposition activity by the Culex (Diptera: culicidae) vectors of West Nile virus in Northeastern North America. J Med Entomol. (2007) 44:211–4. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2007)44[211:EEQAOA]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  Abou-ShaaraHF. The foraging behaviour of honey bees, Apis mellifera: a review. Veterinární Medicína. (2014) 59:1–10. doi: 10.17221/7240-VETMED

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231

  HemingwayJRansonHMagillAKolaczinskiJFornadelCGimnigJet al. Averting a malaria disaster: will insecticide resistance derail malaria control? Lancet. (2016) 387:1785–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00417-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  MoyesCLVontasJMartinsAJNgLCKoouSYDusfourIet al. Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2017) 11:e0005625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005625

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  RansonHLissendenN. Insecticide resistance in African anopheles mosquitoes: A worsening situation that needs urgent action to maintain malaria control. Trends Parasitol. (2016) 32:187–96. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2015.11.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  AbbasRZZamanMAColwellDDGilleardJIqbalZ. Acaricide resistance in cattle ticks and approaches to its management: The state of play. Vet Parasitol. (2014) 203:6–20. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  DzemoWDThekisoeOVudrikoP. Development of acaricide resistance in tick populations of cattle: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. (2022) 8:e08718. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08718

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  EidenALKaufmanPEOiFMAllanSAMillerRJ. Detection of permethrin resistance and fipronil tolerance in Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J Med Entomol. (2015) 52:429–36. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjv005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237

  EddyGWColeMMCouchMDSelhimeA. Resistance of human body lice to insecticides. Public Health Rep 1896-1970. (1955) 70:1035. doi: 10.2307/4589270

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  LopatinaYVEreminaOYKaranLS. Insecticide susceptibility and resistance mechanisms in body lice in Russia. In: MüllerGPospischilRRobinsonWH, editors. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Urban Pests. International Conference on Urban Pests, Zurich, Switzerland (2014). p. 211–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 239

  FronzaGRoca-AcevedoGMougabure-CuetoGASierraICapriottiNTolozaAC. Insecticide resistance mechanisms in Triatoma infestans (Reduviidae: triatominae): the putative role of enhanced detoxification and knockdown resistance (kdr) allele in a resistant hotspot from the argentine Chaco. J Med Entomol. (2020) 57:837–44. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjz249

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 240

  RustM. Insecticide resistance in fleas. Insects. (2016) 7:10. doi: 10.3390/insects7010010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 241

  RustMKVetterRDenholmIBlagburnBWilliamsonMSKoppSet al. Susceptibility of adult cat fleas (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) to insecticides and status of insecticide resistance mutations at the rdl and knockdown resistance loci. Parasitol Res. (2015) 114:7–18. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4512-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 242

  LeeHShieldsMRLandetaASaldañaMAFredregillCLPietrantonioPV. Evaluation of field resistance in field-collected mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus Say through quantification of ULV permethrin/PBO formulation in field bioassays. Pest Manage Sci. (2023) 79:3934–49. doi: 10.1002/ps.7587

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 243

  DusfourIVontasJDavidJ-PWeetmanDFonsecaDMCorbelVet al. Management of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses: Advances and challenges. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2019) 13:e0007615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007615

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 244

  StoneCChitnisNGrossK. Environmental influences on mosquito foraging and integrated vector management can delay the evolution of behavioral resistance. Evol Appl. (2016) 9:502–17. doi: 10.1111/eva.12354

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 245

  LepczykCAFlatherCHRadeloffVCPidgeonAMHammerRBLiuJ. Human impacts on regional avian diversity and abundance. Conserv Biol. (2008) 22:405–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00881.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246

  HuangZYXVan LangeveldeFEstrada-PeñaASuzánGDe BoerWF. The diversity–disease relationship: evidence for and criticisms of the dilution effect. Parasitology. (2016) 143:1075–86. doi: 10.1017/S0031182016000536

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 247

  WilsonMLSpielmanA. Seasonal activity of immature Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol. (1985) 22:408–14. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/22.4.408

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248

  LoGiudiceKOstfeldRSSchmidtKAKeesingF. The ecology of infectious disease: Effects of host diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2003) 100:567–71. doi: 10.5586/aa.2009.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 249

  OstfeldRSKeesingF. Biodiversity and disease risk: the case of Lyme disease. Conserv Biol. (2000) 14:722–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99014.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250

  KeesingFAllanBFYoungTPOstfeldRS. Effects of wildlife and cattle on tick abundance in central Kenya. Ecol Appl. (2013) 23:1410–8. doi: 10.1890/12-1607.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 251

  LinskeMAWilliamsSCStaffordKCOrtegaIM. Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) Reservoir Host Diversity and Abundance Impacts on Dilution of Borrelia burgdorferi (Spirochaetales: Spirochaetaceae) in Residential and Woodland Habitats in Connecticut, United States. J Med Entomol. (2018) 55:681–90. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjx237

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252

  FagreACLyonsSStaplesJELindseyN. West Nile virus and other nationally notifiable arboviral diseases — United states 2021. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. (2023) 72:901–6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 253

  CampbellGLMarfinAALanciottiRSGublerDJ. West Nile virus. Lancet Infect Dis. (2002) 2:519–29. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(02)00368-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254

  LossSRHamerGLWalkerEDRuizMOGoldbergTLKitronUDet al. Avian host community structure and prevalence of West Nile virus in Chicago, Illinois. Oecologia. (2009) 159:415–24. doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-1224-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 255

  EzenwaVOGodseyMSKingRJGuptillSC. Avian diversity and West Nile virus: testing associations between biodiversity and infectious disease risk. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. (2006) 273:109–17. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3284

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 256

  BeaujeanDJMABultsMVan SteenbergenJEVoetenHACM. Study on public perceptions and protective behaviors regarding Lyme disease among the general public in the Netherlands: implications for prevention programs. BMC Public Health. (2013) 13:225. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 257

  HerringtonJE. Risk perceptions regarding ticks and Lyme disease. Am J Prev Med. (2004) 26:135–40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.10.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 258

  PanagosALacyERGublerDJMacphersonCNL. Dengue in Grenada. Rev Panam. Salud Pública. (2005) 17:225–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 259

  ValenteSLWempleDRamosSCashmanSBSavageauJA. Preventive behaviors and knowledge of tick-borne illnesses: results of a survey from an endemic area. J Public Health Manage Pract. (2015) 21:E16–23. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 260

  WongLPAbuBakarSChinnaK. Community knowledge, health beliefs, practices and experiences related to dengue fever and its association with IgG seropositivity. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2014) 8:e2789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002789

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 261

  MowbrayFAmlôtRRubinGJ. Ticking all the boxes? A systematic review of education and communication interventions to prevent tick-borne disease. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. (2012) 12:817–25. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2011.0774

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 262

  SchulzeTLEisenLRussellKJordanRA. Community-based integrated tick management programs: cost and feasibility scenarios. J Med Entomol. (2023) 60:1048–60. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjad093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 263

  SkovmandOOuedraogoTDASanogoESamuelsenHToéLPBosselmannRet al. Cost of integrated vector control with improved sanitation and road infrastructure coupled with the use of slow-release Bacillus sphaericus granules in a tropical urban setting. J Med Entomol. (2011) 48:813–21. doi: 10.1603/ME10041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 264

  BurtisJCFosterEEisenRJEisenL. Willingness and capacity of publicly-funded vector control programs in the USA to engage in tick management. Parasitol Vectors. (2024) 17:316. doi: 10.1186/s13071-024-06400-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 265

  HalasaYAShepardDSWittenbergEFonsecaDMFarajollahiAHealySet al. Willingness-to-pay for an area-wide integrated pest management program to control the Asian tiger mosquito in New Jersey. J Am Mosq. Control Assoc. (2012) 28:225–36. doi: 10.2987/12-6243R.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 266

  DickinsonKLBanacosNCarbajalEDackoNFredregillCHinojosaSet al. Public acceptance of and willingness to pay for mosquito control, Texas, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. (2022) 28:425–8. doi: 10.3201/eid2801.210501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 267

  DickinsonKLHaydenMHHaenchenSMonaghanAJWalkerKRErnstKC. Willingness to pay for mosquito control in Key West, Florida and Tucson, Arizona. Am Soc Trop Med Hyg. (2016) 94:775–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0666

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 268

  DickinsonKPaskewitzS. Willingness to pay for mosquito control: how important is West Nile virus risk compared to the nuisance of mosquitoes? Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. (2012) 12:886–92. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2011.0810

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 269

  World Health Organization. Public health pesticide management: A course module. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2023).

  • Google Scholar