| Literature DB >> 26430734 |
Christine P Zolnik1, Richard C Falco2, Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis3, Thomas J Daniels4.
Abstract
Pathogen prevalence within blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis Say, 1821) tends to vary across sites and geographic regions, but the underlying causes of this variation are not well understood. Efforts to understand the ecology of Lyme disease have led to the proposition that sites with higher host diversity will result in lower disease risk due to an increase in the abundance of inefficient reservoir species relative to the abundance of species that are highly competent reservoirs. Although the Lyme disease transmission cycle is often cited as a model for this "dilution effect hypothesis", little empirical evidence exists to support that claim. Here we tested the dilution effect hypothesis for two pathogens transmitted by the blacklegged tick along an urban-to-rural gradient in the northeastern United States using landscape fragmentation as a proxy for host biodiversity. Percent impervious surface and habitat fragment size around each site were determined to assess the effect of landscape fragmentation on nymphal blacklegged tick infection with Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Our results do not support the dilution effect hypothesis for either pathogen and are in agreement with the few studies to date that have tested this idea using either a landscape proxy or direct measures of host biodiversity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26430734 PMCID: PMC4591970 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139473
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Tick collection localities in New York and Connecticut.
Locations of the fourteen sampling sites used in this study across four counties in southern New York and western Connecticut with land cover types from the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) [43]. Site locality information is consistent with Table 1. Site markers are not drawn to scale. Inset shows a map of the region at state level for reference. Box indicates magnified area.
Collection locality and sample information.
| Site | Town | County, State | DON |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NIP | DIN | NIP | DIN | ||||
| A | Bronx | Bronx, NY | 34 | 26.79% | 9.11 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| B | Yonkers | Westchester, NY | 133 | 16.07% | 21.38 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| C | Rye | Westchester, NY | 31 | 12.50% | 3.88 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| D | Armonk | Westchester, NY | 140 | 10.71% | 15.00 | 3.57% | 5.00 |
| E | Ossining | Westchester, NY | 46 | 0.00% | 0.00 | 10.71% | 4.93 |
| F | Cortlandt | Westchester, NY | 78 | 7.14% | 5.57 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| G | Katonah | Westchester, NY | 75 | 25.00% | 18.75 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| H | Bedford | Westchester, NY | 110 | 14.29% | 15.71 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| I | Pound Ridge | Westchester, NY | 89 | 16.07% | 14.30 | 1.79% | 1.59 |
| J | North Salem | Westchester, NY | 68 | 12.50% | 8.50 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| K | Carmel | Putnam, NY | 78 | 30.36% | 23.68 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| L | Kent | Litchfield, CT | 27 | 17.86% | 4.82 | 1.79% | 0.48 |
| M | Sharon | Litchfield, CT | 125 | 16.07% | 20.09 | 5.36% | 6.70 |
| N | Goshen | Litchfield, CT | 58 | 33.93% | 19.68 | 14.29% | 8.29 |
Location of each site and density of nymphs per 1000 m2 (DON), nymphal infection prevalence (NIP), and density of infected nymphs per 1000 m2 (DIN) for both B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum
Regression analysis results for Borrelia burgdorferi.
| Estimate | SEM |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Intercept | 2.281 | 0.171 | 13.353 | <0.0001 |
| 100m Buffer | -0.019 | 0.066 | -0.289 | 0.772 | |
| Intercept | 2.312 | 0.177 | 13.068 | <0.0001 | |
| 400 m Buffer | -0.020 | 0.035 | -0.588 | 0.557 | |
| Intercept | 2.348 | 0.175 | 13.432 | <0.0001 | |
| 1000 m Buffer | -0.022 | 0.022 | -0.978 | 0.328 | |
|
| Intercept | 2.484 | 0.206 | 12.084 | <0.0001 |
| 100m Buffer | 0.044 | 0.076 | 0.571 | 0.568 | |
| Intercept | 2.532 | 0.219 | 11.547 | <0.0001 | |
| 400 m Buffer | 0.004 | 0.041 | 0.092 | 0.926 | |
| Intercept | 2.607 | 0.219 | 11.901 | <0.0001 | |
| 1000 m Buffer | -0.015 | 0.027 | -0.566 | 0.571 |
Results from negative binomial regression models for nymphal infection prevalence (NIP) and density of infected nymphs per 1000 m2 (DIN) of B. burgdorferi and the predictor value of average impervious surface within three buffers (100, 400, 1000 m) around each site.
Regression analysis results for Anaplasma phagocytophilum.
| Estimate | SEM |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Intercept | 0.750 | 0.575 | 1.304 | 0.192 |
| 100m Buffer | -0.521 | 0.534 | -0.975 | 0.330 | |
| Intercept | 0.994 | 0.516 | 1.925 | 0.054 | |
| 400 m Buffer | -0.622 | 0.386 | -1.613 | 0.107 | |
| Intercept | 0.905 | 0.497 | 1.821 | 0.069 | |
| 1000 m Buffer | -0.309 | 0.202 | -1.529 | 0.126 | |
|
| Intercept | 0.985 | 0.577 | 1.708 | 0.088 |
| 100m Buffer | -0.357 | 0.357 | -1.000 | 0.317 | |
| Intercept | 1.256 | 0.550 | 2.285 | 0.022 | |
| 400 m Buffer | -0.461 | 0.281 | -1.641 | 0.101 | |
| Intercept | 1.202 | 0.528 | 2.278 | 0.023 | |
| 1000 m Buffer | -0.241 | 0.139 | -1.730 | 0.084 |
Results from negative binomial regression models for nymphal infection prevalence (NIP) and density of infected nymphs per 1000 m2 (DIN) of A. phagocytophilum and the predictor value of average impervious surface within three buffers (100, 400, 1000 m) around each site.