Back to all available

A systematic review and meta-analysis of climate-driven anthrax in Zimbabwe: Species-specific dynamics and future risks

ecology
veterinary-medicine
infectious-diseases

Abstract

Anthrax, caused by Bacillus anthracis, is a persistent zoonotic threat in Zimbabwe, yet a synthesis of its climate-driven dynamics is lacking. This study integrates a systematic review (1960 – 2024) with national surveillance data (2013 – 2024) to reveal a high bovine prevalence (26.5%) and severe wildlife outbreaks (e.g., buffalo, 50%; lions/hyenas, 100%). Weighted regional prevalence was 17.33%, with Zimbabwe’s estimates ranging from 10.68% (literature) to 24.2% (surveillance), indicating significant underreporting. Outbreaks strongly correlated with rainfall fluctuations (R²=0.71), clustering in agro-pastoral regions and wildlife-livestock interfaces. Climate projections predict a southward expansion of risk zones by 2050. Despite vaccination efforts, current gaps in coverage and surveillance necessitate a climate-adaptive One Health framework integrating targeted vaccination, enhanced surveillance, and cross-sector collaboration to mitigate future spillover risks.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].