Malaria Increases with Deforestation in Brazil
A 4 percent decrease in forest was associated with a nearly 50 percent rise in malaria cases in western Brazil. Christopher Intagliata reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
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.
You know saving the rainforest is good for biodiversity. But it may also be a boon to human health. That's because less clear-cutting may mean less malaria, according to a paper out this week in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases. [Sarah Olson et al., http://bit.ly/b6iFgT]
Researchers looked at stats for 2006 from 54 health districts in western Brazil. The sites had more than 15,000 cases of malaria. The investigators compared those cases to deforestation in the same health districts over the previous 10 years. They found that a loss of just four percent of forest cover was associated with nearly 50 percent more malaria cases. And malaria risk was highest five to 10 years after the jungle was cleared.
Not all mosquitoes carry malaria. But the human-loving species Anopheles darlingi does, and previous studies have shown that it thrives in disturbed areas. In fact, you're over 200 times more likely to find one of them biting you in a clearing than you are deep in the jungle, where other more benign species compete with them for blood.
So how much clear-cutting is too much? We don't know yet—but an intact swath of rainforest appears to provide free public health services.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
