| Literature DB >> 27333276 |
Mattia Manica1,2, Federico Filipponi1, Antonello D'Alessandro1, Alessia Screti1, Markus Neteler3, Roberto Rosà2, Angelo Solimini1, Alessandra Della Torre1, Beniamino Caputo1.
Abstract
Aedes albopictus is a tropical invasive species which in the last decades spread worldwide, also colonizing temperate regions of Europe and US, where it has become a public health concern due to its ability to transmit exotic arboviruses, as well as severe nuisance problems due to its aggressive daytime outdoor biting behaviour. While several studies have been carried out in order to predict the potential limits of the species expansions based on eco-climatic parameters, few studies have so far focused on the specific effects of these variables in shaping its micro-geographic abundance and dynamics. The present study investigated eco-climatic factors affecting Ae. albopictus abundance and dynamics in metropolitan and sub-urban/rural sites in Rome (Italy), which was colonized in 1997 and is nowadays one of the most infested metropolitan areas in Southern Europe. To this aim, longitudinal adult monitoring was carried out along a 70 km-transect across and beyond the most urbanized and densely populated metropolitan area. Two fine scale spatiotemporal datasets (one with reference to a 20m circular buffer around sticky traps used to collect mosquitoes and the second to a 300m circular buffer within each sampling site) were exploited to analyze the effect of climatic and socio-environmental variables on Ae. albopictus abundance and dynamics along the transect. Results showed an association between highly anthropized habitats and high adult abundance both in metropolitan and sub-urban/rural areas, with "small green islands" corresponding to hot spots of abundance in the metropolitan areas only, and a bimodal seasonal dynamics with a second peak of abundance in autumn, due to heavy rains occurring in the preceding weeks in association with permissive temperatures. The results provide useful indications to prioritize public mosquito control measures in temperate urban areas where nuisance, human-mosquito contact and risk of local arbovirus transmission are likely higher, and highlight potential public health risks also after the summer months typically associated with high mosquito densities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27333276 PMCID: PMC4917172 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004758
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Mean abundance of Aedes albopictus collected along the 70 km-transect encompassing the metropolitan area of Rome.
a) Map showing the weekly mean female abundance during the 18 sampling weeks in the 21 sampling stations (study sites); orange dot = “Metropolitan” site; grey dots = “Sub-Urban-Rural” site. b) Map showing the land cover variables in one of the 21 sampling sites, showing the 300 m-circular buffer calculated from the centroid of the convex hull generated from Sticky Traps (black star) and the 20 m-circular buffer around each Sticky Trap.
Results of GAMM of Aedes albopictus female abundance in metropolitan vs. sub-urban/rural environments.
| Variable | Coeff. | SE | z-value | Pr(>|z|) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.562 | 0.142 | 11.009 | 2e-16 *** |
| Vegetation 20 m | 2.059 | 0.271 | 7.597 | 3.03e-14 *** |
| Vegetation 300 m | -3.147 | 1.201 | -2.619 | 0.009 ** |
| Environment (Sub-Urban/Rural) | -0.039 | 0.175 | -0.222 | 0.824 |
| Vegetation 20 m * Vegetation 300 m | 1.200 | 2.214 | 0.542 | 0.588 |
| Vegetation 20 m * Environment (Sub-Urban/Rural) | -2.470 | 0.342 | -7.226 | 4.96e-13 *** |
| Vegetation 300 m * Environment (Sub-Urban/Rural) | 0.898 | 1.440 | 0.623 | 0.533 |
| Vegetation 20 m * Vegetation 300 m * Environment (Sub-Urban/Rural) | 5.015 | 2.734 | 1.834 | 0.067 |
Metropolitan Environment as reference level. Number of observation = 1353, number of stations = 21. Standard deviation of random effects = 0.33. Value of dispersion parameter = 1.8. The model included a smoothing term with 8 estimated degrees of freedom (approximate p-values <0.0001). Significance code: *** <0.001, 0.001<**<0.01, 0.01<*<0.05.
Fig 2Fitted values (GAMM) of Aedes albopictus female abundance in metropolitan and sub-urban/rural environments in Rome.
Left column = Metropolitan Environment; right column = Sub-Urban/Rural Environment. Fitted mosquito values (Z-axis) = fitted values of females/station/week. A: interaction between Vegetation Covers at 20 m and at 300 m buffers (scaled to the 0–1 interval) conditional to Days of the Year (DoY, considered at its mean values); B: interaction between Vegetation Cover at 20m and DoY conditional to vegetation cover at 300m (considered at mean values); C: interaction between Vegetation Cover at 300m and DoY conditional to Vegetation Cover at 20m (considered at mean values). Variables presented on the original scale (i.e. not centred).
Fig 3Temporal dynamic of Aedes albopictus females during 18 week-sampling in Rome.
A: Temperature (LST, °C) and Rainfall (mm) observed temporal dynamics. Line graph = T, error bars = 95% confidence intervals, y-axis (left) = mean value of LST/week (Lag 0); bar graph = Rainfall, error bars = 95% confidence intervals, y-axis (right) = mean value of mm of rainfall/week (Lag 0). B: Observed mosquito temporal dynamics. Y-axis = boxplot of mosquito/week in Metropolitan (grey boxes) and Sub-Urban/Rural (white boxes) Environments. Boxes = first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). Line inside the box = median. The upper whisker extends from the boxes to the highest value that is within 1.5 * IQR (inter-quartile range: the distance between the first and third quartiles, so the height of the boxes). The lower whisker extends to the lowest value within 1.5 * IQR. Empty circles = outliers. C: Day of Year smoother (GAMM). Grey areas = phases exploited to investigate the climate drivers of the two peaks of mosquito abundance. X-axis = 18 weeks of collections in 2012.
Results of GLMM of Aedes albopictus female abundance in metropolitan vs. sub-urban/rural environments during the first and second phases of highest abundance.
| GLMM Phase-1 | GLMM Phase-2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coeff. | Pr(>|t|) | Variable | Coeff. | Pr(>|t|) |
| Intercept | 1.858 | 2e-16 *** | Intercept | 1.853 | 2e-16 *** |
| Rainfall Lag 1 | -0.0004 | 0.871 | Rainfall Lag 4 | 0.007 | 3.7e-7 *** |
| LST Lag 1 | 0.127 | 0.0008 ** | LST Lag 0 | 0.030 | 0.355 |
| Vegetation 20 m | 1.906 | 2.5e-6 *** | Vegetation 20 m | 2.030 | 3.1e-5 *** |
| Vegetation 300 m | -3.129 | 0.020 * | Vegetation 300 m | -3.673 | 0.021 * |
| Env. (Sub-urban/Rural) | 0.045 | 0.822 | Env. (Sub-urban/Rural) | -0.256 | 0.270 |
| Veg. 20 m * Veg. 300 m | -2.027 | 0.536 | Veg. 20 m * Veg. 300 m | 1.650 | 0.661 |
| Veg. 20 m * Env. | -2.186 | 1.6e-5 *** | Veg. 20 m * Env. | -3.080 | 4e-7 *** |
| Veg. 300 m * Env. | 1.431 | 0.372 | Veg. 300 m * Env. | 2.912 | 0.125 |
| Veg. 20m*Veg. 300m*Env. | 5.960 | 0.130 | Veg. 20m*Veg. 300m*Env. | 6.841 | 0.139 |
Phase-1: number of observation = 543, number of stations = 21, standard deviation of random effects = 0.35. The model included a smoothing term with 8 estimated degrees of freedom (approximate p-values <0.0001). Phase-2: number of observation = 396, number of stations = 21, standard deviation of random effects = 0. 42. The model included a smoothing term with 8 estimated degrees of freedom (approximate p-values <0.0001). Significance code: *** <0.001, 0.001<**<0.01, 0.01<*<0.05.