| Literature DB >> 24289184 |
Emmanuel Roux1, Pascal Gaborit, Christine A Romaña, Romain Girod, Nadine Dessay, Isabelle Dusfour.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sampling design is a key issue when establishing species inventories and characterizing habitats within highly heterogeneous landscapes. Sampling efforts in such environments may be constrained and many field studies only rely on subjective and/or qualitative approaches to design collection strategy. The region of Cacao, in French Guiana, provides an excellent study site to understand the presence and abundance of Anopheles mosquitoes, their species dynamics and the transmission risk of malaria across various environments. We propose an objective methodology to define a stratified sampling design. Following thorough environmental characterization, a factorial analysis of mixed groups allows the data to be reduced and non-collinear principal components to be identified while balancing the influences of the different environmental factors. Such components defined new variables which could then be used in a robust k-means clustering procedure. Then, we identified five clusters that corresponded to our sampling strata and selected sampling sites in each stratum.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24289184 PMCID: PMC4219608 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-13-45
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Figure 1Study area. a) Localization of French Guiana and the region of Cacao; b) Aerial photographs of the Cacao village, the cultivated area and the surrounding dense forest, acquired in 2006 (BD Ortho product from IGN, the French National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information). The wide and sinuous river at the northwest is the Comté River.
Complementary geographic information layers, data sources and attributes extracted for landscape characterization
| Buildings | | | | Minimum distance to, Numberc | Anthropization |
| Asphalt roads, trails | Air photographsa | Manual digitizing (digitizing scale ≈ 1/5400) | Roads/trails accessible with a four-wheel drive vehicle | Minimum distance to (m), Length (m)c | |
| Greenhouses | | | | Minimum distance to, Numberc | |
| Anthropogenic basins | Air photographsa and BD-Carto®;b | | Basins may or may not be permanently flooded | Minimum distance to (m), Surface proportionc | |
| Gold mining sites | Air photographsa and SPOT5 satellite images | Manual digitizing | | Minimum distance to (m) | |
| Permanent rivers (excluding the Comté River) | BD-Carto®;b | | | Minimum distance to (m), Length (m)c | Hydrology |
| Temporary rivers (excluding the Comté River) | | | | ||
| Banks of the Comté River | Land cover map | GISd computation from the land cover map | | | |
| Natural water surfaces | Air photographsa and BD-Carto®;b | | May or may not be permanently flooded | Minimum distance to (m), Surface proportionc | |
| Floodplains | | | Temporarily flooded | | |
| Altitude | | | | Altitude (m) | Topography |
| Aspect (positive angle, in degree, relative to a west-east line) | SRTMe Digital Elevation Model | GISd computation from SRTM data | | West-East orientation (cosine), South-North orientation (sinus) | |
| Slope | Slope (%) |
aAerial photographs from BD-Ortho®; 2006 product (IGN, the French National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information).
bBD-Carto®; 1:25,000 scale map (IGN product, 2006).
cAttribute extracted within a 200 m radius buffer, centered on the virtual collection site.
dGIS: Geographic Information System. The fee and open software used is GRASS GIS [18].
eSRTM: Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (90 m spatial resolution).
Figure 2Fuzzy data coding. Example of fuzzy categorization of a real continuous variable. The asterisk indicates that the minimum, median and maximum values are computed on non-null values only.
Figure 3Virtual, final collection sites and landscape contexts. a) Simplified land cover/use map, virtual sites and their memberships to the five clusters (defining landscape contexts); b) Simplified land cover/use map, chosen “real” mosquito collection sites and their memberships to the five clusters. Large and small symbols correspond to main and secondary mosquito collection sites, respectively.
Description of the five clusters
| Light gray disks | Sites located very near the Comté river | Far from gold mining sites and unfragmented forest; close to floodplains, the Comté river and water (from remote sensing); low altitude and slope; long or medium lengths of Comté river banks within 200 m | |
| Red triangles | Sites located on a plain, corresponding to a zone devoted to mixed vegetable gardening | Far from gold mining sites and unfragmented forest; close to buildings, water, basins and greenhouses; low proportion of forest; medium number of building; medium and high number of greenhouses | |
| Yellow stars | Sites located on hills within a zone devoted to fruit culture | High altitude and slope, far from water, the Comté river, flood plains, greenhouses and basins; within 200 m: no buildings, greenhouses or basin; short lengths of roads; length of the Comté river null; high proportion of forest | |
| Blue diamonds | Isolated sites in non or slightly degraded forest | Shares the majority of | |
| Black squares | Sites situated between the market gardens and the orchards | Difficult to characterize by interpreting the FAMG. Field observations tend to associate such a cluster with i) the presence of very degraded forest patches which are difficult to exploit because of swamps, or ii) numerous patches of fallowed land (4 years and older), corresponding to a stage of the crop rotation |
Figure 4Results of the factorial analysis of mixed groups. a) Virtual and chosen mosquito collection sites on the first factorial plane (factorial axes 1 and 2) of the FAMG; b) significant modalities and c) quantitative variables for the first factorial plane of the FAMG. The colored polygons in sub-figures a) and b) delimit the five clusters provided by the k-means procedure.
Number and species richness of mosquitoes, as a function of the landscape context
| 2 | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | |
| - | 6 | 10 | ||||
| - | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | |
| 4 | - | - | 1 | 5 | - | |
| 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | - | |
| 14 | - | 4 | 15 | 14 | 1 | |
| - | 1 | - | - | - | - | |
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 1 | - | - | - | 1 | - | |
| 25 | 4 | - | ||||
Figure 5Environmental similarities Morisita or Jaccard index for significant Pearson correlation coefficients. a) Environmental similarity for all unique pairs of sites, by considering all the environmental factors jointly and as a function of the Morisita index; b) Land cover/use similarity as a function of the Morisita index; c) Land cover/use similarity as a function of the Jaccard index. The dotted line corresponds to the ideal case where similarities are equal. The continuous line corresponds to the linear regression result; the associated R2, Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value are shown at the top left. Points corresponding to the same landscape context are labelled with the name of context.