Study Supports Possible Connection between Climate Change and Malaria Rise

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Since the 1970s, the highlands of East Africa have witnessed a surge in malaria outbreaks. Because the mosquitoes that carry the disease do not thrive in cooler climes some researchers have suggested a link between this rise and climate change. A 2002 study found no such connection, but a new analysis of the data--including five more years of records--seems to show that a modest increase in temperature could lead to a population boom in mosquitoes and, therefore, malaria.

Mercedes Pascual of the University of Michigan--whose previous research helped link cholera outbreaks and the El Nino Oscillation--and her colleagues used temperature data from the Climate Research Unit in the U.K. stretching back to 1950, the same data used by the 2002 study but with five more years of records subsequently added. Looking at the records for four highland spots where malaria has been on the rise-- Gikongoro in Rwanda, Kabale in Uganda, Kericho in Kenya and Muhanga in Burundi--they found an overall warming trend of 0.5 degree Celsius since the late 1970s.

The team then fed these temperatures, along with rainfall information, into a computer model built to simulate mosquito population dynamics in Hawaii. Even though the temperature change was quite small, its effect on mosquito abundance was quite large. For example, although the temperature rise represented just a 3 percent change for these areas, it led to as much as a 40 percent change in mosquito abundance in Kericho and more than 100 percent in Kabale in the simulation.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Kabale showed an especially large increase in mosquito population because it was among the highest, and therefore coldest sites they modeled. The number of mosquitoes in these areas is typically small, owing to the chilly conditions. But even a small increase in temperature in these locales can quickly tip the balance in the insects' favor, leading to more mosquitoes and, hence, more vectors for the malaria parasite. On the other hand, Pascual and her colleagues point out, warming could dry out the pools in which the mosquitoes breed if temperatures continue to climb or rainfall patterns change.

Although this study does not prove that climate change is responsible for the increase in the malaria plaguing African highlands, the authors say it should be taken into account along with other factors such as treatment resistance and land-use changes. The findings appear in a paper published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe