| Literature DB >> 28786934 |
Mohamed F Sallam1,2, Sarah R Michaels3, Claudia Riegel4, Roberto M Pereira5, Wayne Zipperer6, B Graeme Lockaby7, Philip G Koehler8.
Abstract
The consistent sporadic transmission of West Nile Virus (WNV) in the city of New Orleans justifies the need for distribution risk maps highlighting human risk of mosquito bites. We modeled the influence of biophysical and socioeconomic metrics on the spatio-temporal distributions of presence/vector-host contact (VHC) ratios of WNV vector, Culex quinquefasciatus, within their flight range. Biophysical and socioeconomic data were extracted within 5-km buffer radii around sampling localities of gravid female Culex quinquefasciatus. The spatio-temporal correlations between VHC data and 33 variables, including climate, land use-land cover (LULC), socioeconomic, and land surface terrain were analyzed using stepwise linear regression models (RM). Using MaxEnt, we developed a distribution model using the correlated predicting variables. Only 12 factors showed significant correlations with spatial distribution of VHC ratios (R² = 81.62, p < 0.01). Non-forested wetland (NFWL), tree density (TD) and residential-urban (RU) settings demonstrated the strongest relationship. The VHC ratios showed monthly environmental resilience in terms of number and type of influential factors. The highest prediction power of RU and other urban and built up land (OUBL), was demonstrated during May-August. This association was positively correlated with the onset of the mosquito WNV infection rate during June. These findings were confirmed by the Jackknife analysis in MaxEnt and independently collected field validation points. The spatial and temporal correlations of VHC ratios and their response to the predicting variables are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Culex quinquefasciatus; New Orleans; West Nile virus; distribution risk; habitat suitability
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28786934 PMCID: PMC5580596 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14080892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Proposed thirty-three variables in prediction model of WNV mosquito vectors in the city of New Orleans, LA.
| Variable | Variable Name | Data Source | Units |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alt | Elevation in meters | WorldClim 1 | Meter |
| Aspect | Aspect ratio | Generated 2 | Degrees |
| Bio01 | Annual Mean Temperature | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio02 | Mean Diurnal Range (Mean of monthly (max temp − min temp)) | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio03 | Isothermality (BIO2/BIO7) (* 100) | WorldClim 1 | Dimensionless |
| Bio04 | Temperature Seasonality (standard deviation * 100) | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio05 | Max Temperature of Warmest Month | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio06 | Min Temperature of Coldest Month | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio07 | Temperature Annual Range (BIO5-BIO6) | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio08 | Mean Temperature of Wettest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio09 | Mean Temperature of Driest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Degree Celsius |
| Bio10 | Mean Temperature of Warmest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio11 | Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio12 | Annual Precipitation | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio13 | Precipitation of Wettest Month | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio14 | Precipitation of Driest Month | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio15 | Precipitation Seasonality (Coefficient of Variation) | WorldClim 1 | Fraction |
| Bio16 | Precipitation of Wettest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio17 | Precipitation of Driest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio18 | Precipitation of Warmest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Bio19 | Precipitation of Coldest Quarter | WorldClim 1 | Millimeter |
| Curvature | Curvature | Generated 2 | Degrees |
| DFL | Deciduous forest land | USGS 3 | Integer values |
| FW | Forested wetland | USGS 3 | Integer values |
| Hill shade | Hill shade | Generated 2 | Degrees |
| ICS | Industrial and commercial services | USGS 3 | Integer values |
| NFWL | Non-forested wetland | USGS 3 | Integer values |
| OUBL | Other urban and build-up land | USGS 3 | Integer values |
| Population census | Population census per block | NOLA 5 | No. household/block |
| RU | Residential and urban settings | USGS 3 | Integer values |
| SCLRE | Streams, canals, lakes, reservoirs and estuaries | USGS 3 | Integer values |
| Slope | Slope | Generated 2 | Degrees |
| TD | Tree density | Lewis et al. 4 | No. trees/area |
1 WorldClim Global Climate database v1.4, available at: http://www.ccafs-climate.org/data/ (accessed on 7 March 2016); 2 Digital elevation model using the surface spatial analyst tool in Arc tool box of ArcGIS ver. 10.1; 3 USGS available at: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/ds240/ (accessed on 3 March 2016); 4 Lewis et al. (In Review) [31]; 5 data.nola.gov (accessed on 7 March 2016) All layers of variables data used in producing species distribution model gridded to ~1 km spatial resolution and projected into World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984.
Figure 1The seven LULC classes and sampling sites in NOLA.
Number of traps and area percentage of LULC classes within 5-km buffer radii in NOLA.
| LULC Class | Area % LULC Class | No. Traps/Class |
|---|---|---|
| Deciduous forest | 7.18 | 2 |
| Forested wetland | 8.01 | 2 |
| Industrial and commercial services | 9.56 | 4 |
| Non forested wetland | 7.72 | 1 |
| Other urban and built-up land | 4.61 | 3 |
| Residential-Urban | 28.29 | 25 |
| Streams, canals, lakes, reservoirs and estuaries | 24.93 | 0 |
Figure 2West Nile Virus transmission model, and expected outcomes in response to proposed predicting variables.
Predicting variables used in building up the spatial and temporal models.
| Model | Variables | Test AUC | AICc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial Model | Bio 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 17, 18, NFWL, RU, TD | 0.71 | 0.82 | 505.01 |
| April | Bio 11, 12, 14, 15, 8 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 79.05 |
| May | Alt, Bio 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, NFWL | 0.74 | 0.85 | 71.53 |
| June | Alt, Bio 11, 14, 2, 8, OUBL | 0.73 | 0.81 | 80.57 |
| July | bio14, 15, 8, 9, OUBL | 0.77 | 0.83 | 73.28 |
| August | bio11, 12, ,15, 8, 9, OUBL, RU | 0.8 | 0.93 | 60.67 |
| September | Bio 8, 11, 12 | 0.79 | 0.58 | 88.26 |
| October | Bio 1, 8, 12 | 0.75 | 0.55 | 81.30 |
| November | Bio 2, 8 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 84.34 |
| December | Bio 8, 12 | 0.71 | 0.42 | 80.95 |
Percent contribution of predicting variables on spatial distribution of WNV mosquito vector during 2015 in City of New Orleans, LA.
| Variable | Linear Regression Analysis | % Contribution (Jackknife’s Test) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | AICc | ||||
| Bio 1 | 3.08 | 0.65 | 8 | 635.73 ** | 1.1 |
| Bio 11 | 4.74 | 0.46 | 4 | 722.22 ** | 8.8 |
| Bio 13 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 10 | 532.48 ** | 0.1 |
| Bio 17 | -0.24 | 0.08 | 2 | 834.61 * | 0.1 |
| Bio 18 | -0.25 | 0.73 | 9 | 579.02 ** | 37.2 |
| Bio 2 | -0.83 | 0.81 | 12 | 514.95 * | 0.2 |
| Bio 4 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 3 | 828.82 ** | 1.6 |
| Bio 6 | -2.99 | 0.49 | 5 | 711.32 * | 0.1 |
| Bio 7 | -1.74 | 0.57 | 6 | 676.71 * | 0.3 |
| NFWL | 1.91 | 0.82 | 13 | 505.01 | 28.9 |
| RU | -1.24 | 0.60 | 7 | 662.57 ** | 20.9 |
| TD | 0.60 | 0.80 | 11 | 523.11 ** | 0.7 |
* Significant at p < 0.05; ** Significant at p < 0.01; Best predictor, significant (p < 0.01).
Figure 3Monthly mosquito WNV infection rate in correlation with vector-host contact ratios in NOLA.
Percent contribution of predicting variables on temporal distribution of vector-host contact ratios of WNV in the City of New Orleans, LA.
| Month | Linear Regression Model | % Contribution (Jackknife’s Test) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | AICc | ||||
| Bio 11 | 1.5671996 | 0.7468 | 6 | 79.0541 | 73.6 | |
| Bio 12 | −0.1904792 | 0.6252 | 5 | 83.8586 ** | 1.7 | |
| Bio 14 | 0.580292 | 0.4581 | 3 | 85.311 * | 0.8 | |
| Bio 15 | 0.9505776 | 0.5683 | 4 | 83.3859 * | 1.9 | |
| Bio 8 | 1.549815 | 0.292 | 2 | 88.5009 ** | 21.9 | |
| Alt | 0.2054192 | 0.6929 | 5 | 74.2539 * | 2.2 | |
| Bio 11 | 1.2170901 | 0.8465 | 8 | 71.5334 | 51.1 | |
| Bio 12 | −0.1428952 | 0.7531 | 7 | 77.6814 ** | 1.7 | |
| Bio 14 | −0.0756836 | 0.5338 | 3 | 77.4397 * | 0.9 | |
| Bio 15 | 0.8079636 | 0.6232 | 4 | 75.555 ** | 1.2 | |
| Bio 8 | 1.9098991 | 0.3773 | 2 | 81.4792 ** | 15.4 | |
| NFWL | 1.6682811 | 0.726 | 6 | 75.5791 ** | 27.6 | |
| Alt | 0.2648213 | 0.8139 | 7 | 80.5656 | 1.6 | |
| Bio11 | 1.0789617 | 0.7693 | 6 | 81.1173 ** | 57.9 | |
| Bio14 | −1.0029246 | 0.5241 | 3 | 87.6001 ** | 1.1 | |
| Bio2 | 1.4828419 | 0.5889 | 4 | 87.3124 ** | 0.5 | |
| Bio8 | 2.3433611 | 0.2854 | 2 | 94.4485 ** | 38.8 | |
| OUBL | 1.5141391 | 0.6708 | 5 | 85.5914 ** | 0.1 | |
| Bio14 | −0.6971647 | 0.5415 | 3 | 86.6717 ** | 2.1 | |
| Bio15 | 1.5743201 | 0.7435 | 5 | 79.5723 ** | 1.5 | |
| Bio 8 | 2.4390573 | 0.3209 | 2 | 93.1952 ** | 31 | |
| Bio 9 | −0.6412268 | 0.8334 | 6 | 73.2771 | 65.3 | |
| OUBL | 1.9151789 | 0.6321 | 4 | 84.6186 ** | 0.1 | |
| Bio 11 | 1.0996856 | 0.8687 | 6 | 65.7127 ** | 35.1 | |
| Bio12 | −0.0854343 | 0.6302 | 4 | 82.893 ** | 1.2 | |
| Bio15 | 1.5403677 | 0.8289 | 5 | 68.006 ** | 0.3 | |
| Bio8 | 1.8883324 | 0.1999 | 2 | 95.2837 ** | 9.7 | |
| Bio9 | −0.7676054 | 0.9091 | 7 | 61.4863 * | 16.1 | |
| OUBL | 2.9633858 | 0.4018 | 3 | 91.2107 ** | 1.3 | |
| RU | 0.2968421 | 0.9294 | 8 | 60.6681 | 36.3 | |
| Bio 8 | −0.1073224 | 0.2915 | 2 | 95.6155 ** | 10.1 | |
| Bio 11 | 0.9622917 | 0.5849 | 4 | 88.2612 | 88.5 | |
| Bio 12 | −0.1073224 | 0.4927 | 3 | 90.1222 ** | 1.4 | |
| Bio 1 | 1.2929084 | 0.5465 | 4 | 81.2964 | 56.6 | |
| Bio 8 | 1.431466 | 0.1947 | 2 | 89.6387 ** | 37.7 | |
| Bio 12 | −0.0983597 | 0.4436 | 3 | 83.2546 ** | 5.7 | |
| Bio 2 | 0.9214511 | 0.5155 | 3 | 84.3401 | 0.1 | |
| Bio 8 | 1.6743075 | 0.2768 | 2 | 91.4944 ** | 99.9 | |
| Bio 8 | 1.591142 | 0.1993 | 2 | 85.9884 ** | 84.9 | |
| Bio 12 | −0.0493324 | 0.4161 | 3 | 80.9488 | 15.1 | |
* Significant at p < 0.05; ** Significant at p < 0.01; Best predictor, significant (p < 0.01).
Figure 4Distribution risk maps for WNV in NOLA representing average, median, maximum, and minimum habitat suitability and sampling localities.
Figure 5Response curve of spatial distribution of VHC ratio to predicting variables in the Jackknife test.
Figure 6Average habitat suitability of infective mosquito showing field validation points.