| Literature DB >> 27030357 |
Agustín Estrada-Peña1, Neil Alexander2, G R William Wint2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper aims to illustrate the steps needed to produce reliable correlative modelling for arthropod vectors, when process-driven models are unavailable. We use ticks as examples because of the (re)emerging interest in the pathogens they transmit. We argue that many scientific publications on the topic focus on: (i) the use of explanatory variables that do not adequately describe tick habitats; (ii) the automatic removal of variables causing internal (statistical) problems in the models without considering their ecological significance; and (iii) spatial pattern matching rather than niche mapping, therefore losing information that could be used in projections.Entities:
Keywords: Correlative distribution modelling; MODIS Fourier transformation; Remote sensing; Ticks
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27030357 PMCID: PMC4815247 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1474-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1The geographical distribution of suitable environmental conditions for the tick Ixodes ricinus in the western Palaearctic, as obtained with the coefficients from the logistic regression shown in Table 1 and applying a grid of 0.05° to the complete target territory a. The method has potential not only to map such suitable conditions but to overlay with administrative divisions allowing the planning of active surveys in territories yet undetected but with positive suitability (b, from the square in a). It has also a potential for decisions makers to apply effective measurements of impact at defined territories. Because the grid covering the territory, trends of weather can also be evaluated, together with the variables shaping the distribution of a given species of tick
The % tick records reported in the western Palaearctic, obtained through a systematic literature search in the western Palaearctic [15] tabulated against the CORINE-3 land cover classification scheme
| Category of CORINE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agro-forestry areas | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Annual crops associated with permanent crops | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Broad-leaved forest | 16 | 15 | 7 | 18 | 15 | 0 | 11 |
| Complex cultivation patterns | 7 | 11 | 17 | 6 | 5 | 30 | 9 |
| Coniferous forest | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 1 |
| Continuous urban fabric | 2 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Discontinuous urban fabric | 20 | 22 | 17 | 17 | 14 | 13 | 13 |
| Fruit trees and berry plantations | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Green urban areas | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Industrial or commercial units | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Inland marshes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7 |
| Mixed forest | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 1 |
| Moors and heathland | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Natural grasslands | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Non-irrigated arable land | 20 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 17 | 19 | 25 |
| Olive groves | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Pastures | 10 | 10 | 2 | 14 | 9 | 2 | 2 |
| Peat bogs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Permanently irrigated land | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 |
| Rice fields | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sclerophyllous vegetation | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Sparsely vegetated areas | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 1 |
| Transitional woodland-shrub | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Vineyards | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Tabulation was done using the records in the grid against the majority of the vegetation classes in the layer of vegetation
Abbreviations: for the species of ticks are DM, D. marginatus; DR, D. reticulatus; HM, H. marginatum; HP, H. punctata; IR, I. ricinus; RA, R. annulatus; RB, R. bursa
The percent of records of ticks reported in the western Palaearctic, obtained through a systematic literature search in the western Palaearctic [15] tabulated against the GlobalCov land cover classification scheme
| Category of GlobalCov |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial surfaces and associated areas (urban areas > 50 %) | 6 | 12 | 17 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Bare areas | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Closed (> 40 %) broadleaved deciduous forest (> 5 m) | 20 | 28 | 9 | 24 | 31 | 2 | 11 |
| Closed (> 40 %) needle leaved evergreen forest (> 5 m) | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| Closed to open (> 15 %) (broadleaved or needleleaved, evergreen or deciduous) shrubland (< 5 m) | 2 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Closed to open (> 15 %) grassland or woody vegetation on regularly flooded or waterlogged soil - Fresh, brackish or saline water | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Closed to open (> 15 %) herbaceous vegetation (grassland, savannas or lichens/mosses) | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Closed to open (> 15 %) mixed broadleaved and needleleaved forest (> 5 m) | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Mosaic cropland (50–70 %)/vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (20–50 %) | 16 | 5 | 19 | 16 | 7 | 14 | 25 |
| Mosaic forest or shrubland (50–70 %)/grassland (20–50 %) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Mosaic grassland (50–70 %)/forest or shrubland (20–50 %) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Mosaic vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (50–70 %)/cropland (20–50 %) | 1 | 0 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 44 | 5 |
| Open (15–40 %) needleleaved deciduous or evergreen forest (> 5 m) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Post-flooding or irrigated croplands (or aquatic) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Rainfed croplands | 34 | 34 | 16 | 30 | 17 | 15 | 21 |
| Sparse (< 15 %) vegetation | 16 | 14 | 12 | 17 | 11 | 7 | 20 |
Tabulation was done using the records in the grid against the majority of the vegetation classes in the layer of vegetation
Abbreviations: for the species of ticks are DM, D. marginatus; DR, D. reticulatus; HM, H. marginatum; HP, H. punctata; IR, I. ricinus; RA, R. annulatus; RB, R. bursa