| Literature DB >> 28057067 |
Andrew J MacDonald1,2, David W Hyon3, John B Brewington3, Kerry E O'Connor4, Andrea Swei4, Cheryl J Briggs3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tick-borne diseases, particularly Lyme disease, are emerging across the northern hemisphere. In order to manage emerging diseases and predict where emergence will likely occur, it is necessary to understand the factors influencing the distribution, abundance and infection prevalence of vector species. In North America, Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne disease and is transmitted by blacklegged ticks. This study aimed to explore the abiotic and environmental drivers of density and infection prevalence of western blacklegged ticks (Ixodes pacificus) in southern California, an understudied and densely populated region of North America.Entities:
Keywords: Borrelia bissettiae; Drought; Enzootic transmission; Ixodes peromysci; Ixodes spinipalpis; Partial least squares regression; Vector diversity
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28057067 PMCID: PMC5217405 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1938-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Map of study sites. State of California is inset on the bottom left; Santa Barbara County is in the main frame with study site boundaries included. California hill shade data layer was obtained from Cal-Atlas through https://koordinates.com (https://koordinates.com/layer/692-california-hillshade-30m/)
Tick species collected by flagging by stage, year and site. Tick species diversity (Shannon’s H index) is presented as maximum plot-level diversity with average reserve-level diversity in parentheses
| Site | Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tick diversity maximum (average) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COPR | 2014 | 31, 0, 0 | 1, 1, 20 | 0, 3, 0 | 0, 1, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 390, 0, 0 | 1, 29, 151 | 1.365 (0.315) |
| 2015 | 16, 0, 0 | 0, 3, 152 | 1, 5, 0 | 1, 4, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 125, 0, 0 | 0, 8, 33 | ||
| Paradise | 2014 | 93, 32, 89 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 12, 1, 8 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 0.414 (0.329) |
| 2015 | 61, 1, 35 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 17, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | ||
| Sedgwick | 2014 | 54, 8, 35 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 246, 15, 114 | 24, 0, 5 | 0, 7, 24 | 0.982 (0.613) |
| 2015 | 33, 26, 251 | 1, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 0, 0 | 26, 6, 80 | 0, 0, 0 | 0, 3, 1 |
Abbreviations: A adults, L larvae, N nymphs
Average and peak density of I. pacificus adults, nymphs and larvae in 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 by reserve (site). Densities are presented as number of ticks per 100 m2 with standard errors in parentheses
| Average density | Peak density | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Life stage | Site | 2013–2014 | 2014–2015 | 2013–2014 | 2014–2015 |
| Adults | COPR | 0.017 (0.009) | 0.005 (0.003) | 0.1 (0.045) | 0.06 (0.031) |
| Paradise | 0.568 (0.147) | 0.615 (0.164) | 1.25 (0.210) | 1.3 (0.520) | |
| Sedgwick | 0.039 (0.009) | 0.027 (0.011) | 0.28 (0.074) | 0.208 (0.060) | |
| Adults total | 0.118 (0.047) | 0.115 (0.053) | 0.367 (0.096) | 0.328 (0.122) | |
| Nymphs | COPR | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Paradise | 0.109 (0.050) | 0.007 (0.007) | 0.359 (0.123) | 0.036 (0.036) | |
| Sedgwick | 0.007 (0.004) | 0.025 (0.018) | 0.06 (0.031) | 0.147 (0.102) | |
| Nymphs total | 0.021 (0.011) | 0.012 (0.008) | 0.085 (0.034) | 0.067 (0.044) | |
| Larvae | COPR | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Paradise | 0.297 (0.175) | 0.201 (0.150) | 0.959 (0.389) | 0.6 (0.356) | |
| Sedgwick | 0.024 (0.024) | 0.275 (0.204) | 0.38 (0.38) | 1.953 (1.311) | |
| Larvae total | 0.06 (0.036) | 0.148 (0.089) | 0.318 (0.178) | 0.914 (0.564) | |
PLSR Model results for multivariate adult I. pacificus average and peak density in 2013–2014 and 2014–2015. VIP scores greater than 1 (highlighted in bold) indicate significant contributions of those variables to the variation explained by each component; variable weights indicate the direction of the effect. Asterisk indicates the variable contributing most significantly to the variation in the component, and the strongest predictor of tick density. The second component acts on residual variation not explained by the first component
| 2013–2014 | 2014–2015 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weights (VIP) comp. 1 | Weights (VIP) comp. 2 | Weights (VIP) comp. 1 | Weights (VIP) comp. 2 | |
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2013–2014 | -0.313 (0.990) | -0.152 (0.837) |
| 0.015 (0.806) |
| Elevation (m) |
| -0.136 (0.885) | 0.272 (0.944) | -0.089 (0.761) |
| Slope | 0.144 (0.454) |
| 0.109 (0.379) |
|
| Canopy cover (%) |
|
|
|
|
| Litter cover (%) | 0.246 (0.777) | -0.389 (0.972) | 0.229 (0.792) | -0.330 (0.946) |
| Shrub cover (%) | 0.021 (0.067) | 0.077 (0.158) | 0.041 (0.143) | 0.066 (0.181) |
| Grass cover (%) | -0.136 (0.431) | 0.092 (0.384) | -0.147 (0.508) | 0.063 (0.419) |
| Bare ground cover (%) | 0.023 (0.071) | 0.082 (0.167) | 0.021 (0.074) | 0.146 (0.321) |
| Stem density (No./Plot) |
|
|
|
|
| Woodrat density |
|
|
|
|
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2014–2015 | na | na |
| 0.036 (0.947) |
| Avg. max. summer temp. 2014 | na | na | -0.128 (0.444) | 0.257 (0.656) |
|
| 0.45 | 0.268 | 0.442 | 0.285 |
Abbreviations: na not available, VIP variable importance in the projection
Fig. 2Density (a) and peak density (b) of adult I. pacificus in 2013–2014 plotted against the position of each sampled plot in the first PLSR component; and residual variation in density (c) and residual variation in peak density (d) plotted against the position of each sampled plot in the second PLSR component. Correlation coefficients and P-values are presented in each panel
PLSR Model results for multivariate nymphal I. pacificus average and peak density in 2013–2014 and 2014–2015. VIP scores greater than 1 (highlighted in bold) indicate significant contributions of those variables to the variation explained by each component; variable weights indicate the direction of the effect. Asterisk indicates the variable contributing most significantly to the variation in the component, and the strongest predictor of tick density. The second component acts on residual variation not explained by the first component
| 2013–2014 | 2014–2015 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weights (VIP) comp. 1 | Weights (VIP) comp. 2 | Weights (VIP) comp. 1 | Weights (VIP) comp. 2 | |
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2013–2014 | -0.187 (0.590) | 0.081 (0.522) | 0.021 (0.073) | 0.377 (0.882) |
| Elevation (m) | 0.312 (0.986) | -0.237 (0.929) |
| -0.162 (0.885) |
| Slope | 0.071 (0.223) |
| 0.228 (0.789) | -0.238 (0.806) |
| Canopy cover (%) |
|
|
|
|
| Litter cover (%) | 0.299 (0.946) | -0.278 (0.929) |
|
|
| Shrub cover (%) | 0.055 (0.173) | 0.116 (0.241) | 0.007 (0.026) | 0.005 (0.023) |
| Grass cover (%) | -0.235 (0.742) | -0.082 (0.649) |
| -0.184 (0.918) |
| Bare ground cover (%) | 0.249 (0.788) |
| -0.068 (0.235) | -0.025 (0.183) |
| Stem density (No./Plot) |
|
|
|
|
| Woodrat density |
|
| 0.121 (0.419) |
|
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2014–2015 | na | na | -0.063 (0.218) | 0.372 (0.885) |
| Avg. max. summer temp. 2014 | na | na | 0.017 (0.059) | 0.346 (0.809) |
|
| 0.484 | 0.177 | 0.295 | 0.247 |
Abbreviations: na not available, VIP variable importance in the projection
Fig. 3Density (a) and peak density (b) of nymphal I. pacificus in 2013–2014 plotted against the position of each sampled plot in the first PLSR component; and residual variation in density (c) and residual variation in peak density (d) plotted against the position of each sampled plot in the second PLSR component. Correlation coefficients and P-values are presented in each panel
PLSR Model results for multivariate larval I. pacificus average and peak density in 2013–2014 and 2014–2015. VIP scores greater than 1 (highlighted in bold) indicate significant contributions of those variables to the variation explained by each component; variable weights indicate the direction of the effect. Asterisk indicates the variable contributing most significantly to the variation in the component, and the strongest predictor of tick density. The second component acts on residual variation not explained by the first component
| 2013–2014 | 2014–2015 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weights (VIP) comp. 1 | Weights (VIP) comp. 2 | Weights (VIP) comp. 1 | Weights (VIP) comp. 2 | |
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2013–2014 | -0.178 (0.561) | 0.112 (0.533) | -0.017 (0.057) | 0.395 (0.895) |
| Elevation (m) | 0.281 (0.890) | -0.258 (0.878) |
| -0.123 (0.849) |
| Slope | 0.124 (0.391) | -0.647 (0.901) | 0.214 (0.741) | -0.254 (0.804) |
| Canopy cover (%) |
|
|
|
|
| Litter cover (%) |
|
|
|
|
| Shrub cover (%) | 0.155 (0.491) | 0.287 (0.580) | 0.056 (0.194) | 0.049 (0.184) |
| Grass cover (%) |
|
|
|
|
| Bare ground cover (%) | 0.046 (0.145) | 0.381 (0.504) | -0.088 (0.306) | -0.054 (0.261) |
| Stem density (No./Plot) |
|
|
|
|
| Woodrat density |
|
| 0.176 (0.609) | -0.365 (0.946) |
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2014–2015 | na | na | -0.101 (0.351) | 0.377 (0.895) |
| Avg. max. summer temp. 2014 | na | na | -0.043 (0.150) | 0.312 (0.716) |
|
| 0.398 | 0.078 | 0.359 | 0.267 |
Abbreviations: na not available, VIP variable importance in the projection
Fig. 4Density (a) and peak density (b) of larval I. pacificus in 2013–2014 plotted against the position of each sampled plot in the first PLSR component; and residual variation in density (c) and residual variation in peak density (d) plotted against the position of each sampled plot in the second PLSR component. Correlation coefficients and P-values are presented in each panel
Summary of infection results by tick species
| Tick species | Number tested | Number infected |
| Prevalence (%) (all life stages) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 288 adults; 67 nymphs | 0 | na | na |
|
| 2 adults; 4 nymphs | 0 | na | na |
|
| 1 adult; 8 nymphs | 1 adult female |
| 11.1 |
|
| 1 adult; 5 nymphs | 3 nymphs |
| 50.0 |
Abbreviation: na not available
PLSR Model results for infection prevalence with Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) in Ixodes spp. ticks, 2014–2015. VIP scores greater than 1 (highlighted in bold) indicate significant contributions of those variables to the variation explained by each component; variable weights indicate the direction of the effect. Asterisk indicates the variable(s) contributing most significantly to the variation in the component, and the strongest predictor of infection. The second component acts on residual variation not explained by the first component
| Weights (VIP) comp. 1 | Weights (VIP) comp. 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2013–2014 | -0.040 (0.144) |
|
| Elevation (m) |
| -0.025 (0.092) |
| Slope | -0.103 (0.373) | -0.186 (0.670) |
| Canopy cover (%) | -0.091 (0.328) | -0.239 (0.861) |
| Litter cover (%) | 0.123 (0.443) | -0.211 (0.761) |
| Shrub cover (%) | 0.156 (0.561) |
|
| Grass cover (%) | -0.144 (0.518) |
|
| Bare ground cover (%) |
|
|
| Stem density (No./Plot) | -0.065 (0.234) | -0.202 (0.729) |
| Woodrat density | -0.144 (0.518) | -0.185 (0.667) |
| Tick diversity (Shannon’s) |
| 0.224 (0.807) |
| Avg. max. winter temp. 2014–2015 | 0.012 (0.044) |
|
| Avg. max. summer temp. 2014 |
| -0.034 (0.124) |
|
| 0.529 | 0.086 |
Abbreviation: VIP variable importance in the projection