Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus

Kraemer, Moritz U. G.; Sinka, Marianne E.; Duda, Kirsten A.; Mylne, Adrian Q. N.; Shearer, Freya M.; Barker, Christopher M.

eLife, 2015

Peer-reviewedmodelling studynot applicable

Assembles a global database of occurrence records for both species and models environmental suitability from climatic and human-population covariates, producing maps of predicted suitability distinct from confirmed presence.

Studied in
Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus
Sample size
compiled global occurrence records with environmental covariates

The two species have distinct global distributions and distinct predicted suitability. Aedes aegypti is largely confined to tropical and subtropical regions, while Aedes albopictus tolerates cooler conditions and has spread considerably further into temperate zones, including parts of Europe.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

Suitability maps identify where these species could persist, and should be read alongside, not as, records of where they are.

How NatureHQ reads it

The record that separates two species people merge into "tropical mosquitoes". They are not interchangeable: albopictus is the one that tolerates cool temperate conditions and has established widely in Europe, and aegypti is substantially more restricted by cold. A British detection of one says very little about the other. The paper is also useful for a habit of mind — it produces suitability, which is a statement about conditions, and takes care not to present it as occupancy.

  • A model: predicted suitability is not observed presence, and occurrence records are unevenly collected.
  • Published in 2015; distributions of both species have continued to change since.

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: eLife Sciences PublicationsPublished in eLife under CC BY 4.0.

doi.org/10.7554/elife.08347

Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.

NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-04.