| Literature DB >> 27977674 |
Jennifer R Head1, Howard Chang2, Qunna Li2, Christopher M Hoover3, Thomas Wilke4, Catharina Clewing4, Elizabeth J Carlton5, Song Liang6, Ding Lu7, Bo Zhong7, Justin V Remais3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the dispersal of hosts and vectors-through active or passive movement-is known to facilitate the spread and re-emergence of certain infectious diseases, little is known about the movement ecology of Oncomelania spp., intermediate snail host of the parasite Schistosoma japonicum, and its consequences for the spread of schistosomiasis in East and Southeast Asia. In China, despite intense control programs aimed at preventing schistosomiasis transmission, there is evidence in recent years of re-emergence and persistence of infection in some areas, as well as an increase in the spatial extent of the snail host. A quantitative understanding of the dispersal characteristics of the intermediate host can provide new insights into the spatial dynamics of transmission, and can assist public health officials in limiting the geographic spread of infection. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27977674 PMCID: PMC5157946 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Map of study sites showing proportion of recent migrant individuals (denoted by symbol size) estimated by BayesAss at each site, propensity of the site to attract or retain migrants (denoted by symbol color; note two sites with split color symbology indicate simultaneous high attractivity and low/high retentivity), and inter-village migration rates (denoted by arrows).
To improve clarity, inter-village migration rates less than 0.02 are not shown.
Ecological properties considered in the development of connectivity models.
| Model | Description | High Cost Features | Low Cost Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dispersal is limited by straight-line distance | - | - | |
| Dispersal is limited by overland distance, accounting for elevation change | High elevations | Low elevations | |
| Dispersal uphill is limited, downhill is facilitated | Uphill movement | Downhill movement | |
| Dispersal is facilitated by increased soil wetness | Dry soil | Wet soil | |
| Dispersal is facilitated or limited by certain land cover classifications | Still water, barren and built land | Agricultural land and streams | |
| Dispersal is facilitated as distance from nearest stream cell decreases and is limited as distance from nearest stream cell increases | Areas far from stream cells | Areas close to stream cells | |
| Dispersal is facilitated along streams, and limited in the upstream direction | Land | Streams | |
| Dispersal is facilitated along streams and within the agricultural channel network, and limited in the upstream direction | Land | Streams and agricultural channels | |
| Dispersal is facilitated along streams, and limited in the upstream direction, proportional to flow velocity in the water channel | Land | Streams |
Odds ratios of migration for a one unit increase in IQR of the minimum geographic distance value for each of the connectivity models.
| Environmental Weighting | Fixed Effects Model | Random Effects Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | (95% CI) | OR | (95% CI) | |
| Euclidean | 0.820 | (0.790, 0.849) | 0.802 | (0.721, 0.883) |
| Incline | 0.797 | (0.716, 0.879) | 0.800 | (0.719, 0.881) |
| Topography | 0.766 | (0.576, 0.955) | 0.803 | (0.722, 0.884) |
| Wetness | 0.854 | (0.787, 0.939) | 0.811 | (0.730, 0.892) |
| Land use | 0.802 | (0.721, 0.883) | 0.812 | (0.724, 0.899) |
| Watershed | 0.812 | (0.725, 0.899) | 0.827 | (0.746, 0.908) |
| Stream only | 0.892 | (0.807, 0.977) | 0.891 | (0.806, 0.976) |
| Streams and channels | 0.827 | (0.746, 0.908) | 0.766 | (0.576, 0.956) |
| Stream velocity | 0.829 | (0.762, 0.896) | 0.890 | (0.805, 0.975) |
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval
Relative coefficient of determinations from random-effects models for migration rate and geographic distance restricting sites to within specified distance, in meters.
Highlighted boxes indicate superiority of fit, based on relative R2, where Euclidean model is used as the reference model. Higher numbers of R2 indicate superiority of fit.
| Environmental Weighting | R2 Model/R2 Euclidean Model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 | 2,000 | 3,000 | 5,000 | 8,000 | 10,000 | All | |
| Euclidean | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Incline | 0.63 | 2.13 | 1.22 | 1.12 | 1.07 | 1.05 | 1.02 |
| Topography | 0.70 | 1.22 | 1.07 | 1.03 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.01 |
| Wetness | 0.68 | 4.32 | 1.38 | 1.16 | 1.10 | 1.08 | 0.99 |
| Land use | 0.15 | 12.98 | 1.36 | 1.50 | 1.20 | 1.14 | 1.05 |
| Watershed | 1.18 | 4.62 | 1.52 | 1.31 | 1.18 | 0.08 | 1.00 |
| Streams only | 0.04 | 5.97 | 1.31 | 1.07 | 0.99 | 1.03 | 0.96 |
| Stream velocity | 0.08 | 5.70 | 1.30 | 1.03 | 0.96 | 1.01 | 0.95 |
Associations between village characteristics and measures of site attractivity and retentivity of snails
| Village Characteristic | Mean Difference | |
|---|---|---|
| Retentivity | Attractivity | |
| Population > 6 years old | 17.25 (-4.47, 38.97) | -3.98 (-22.54, 14.58) |
| No. rivers entering village | 0.36 (-0.07, 0.78) | 0.10 (-0.27, 0.46) |
| No. irrigation channels entering village | 0.91 (0.14, 1.45) | 0.53 (0.03, 1.02) |
| No. rivers leaving village | 0.28 (-0.13, 0.69) | 0.03 (-0.31, 0.38) |
| No. irrigation channels leaving village | 0.49 (-0.34, 1.32) | 0.57 (-0.084, 1.23) |
| Proportion of irrigation channels lined with concrete | -2.13 (-19.19, 14.94) | -0.65 (-14.63, 13.32) |
| No. reservoirs | 1.44 (-0.14, 3.03) | 0.63 (-0.72, 1.99) |
| Area devoted to rice production (acres) | 1.79 (-0.50, 4.08) | -0.13 (-2.50, 2.24) |
| Total agricultural area (acres) | 9.86 (0.70, 19.01) | 0.90 (-4.77, 6.57) |
| Proportion of farmland devoted to rice cultivation | 3.01 (-5.40, 11.42) | -0.61 (-8.93, 7.71) |
| Proportion of land cover cells within a 1 km buffer classified as agricultural | 0.47 (-10.88, 11.82) | 3.07 (-6.12, 12.25) |
CI = confidence interval
*indicates p<0.05
1 Reflects the mean difference in village characteristic units between sites ranking in the 75th percentile for attractivity/retentivity and sites ranking in the 25th percentile for attractivity/retentivity.
2 Obtained from remote satellite imagery. All other characteristics determined from village surveys conducted by Carlton and colleagues [36]