| Literature DB >> 29361971 |
Solny A Adalsteinsson1,2, W Gregory Shriver3, Andrias Hojgaard4, Jacob L Bowman3, Dustin Brisson5, Vincent D'Amico6, Jeffrey J Buler3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Forests in urban landscapes differ from their rural counterparts in ways that may alter vector-borne disease dynamics. In urban forest fragments, tick-borne pathogen prevalence is not well characterized; mitigating disease risk in densely-populated urban landscapes requires understanding ecological factors that affect pathogen prevalence. We trapped blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis) nymphs in urban forest fragments on the East Coast of the United States and used multiplex real-time PCR assays to quantify the prevalence of four zoonotic, tick-borne pathogens. We used Bayesian logistic regression and WAIC model selection to understand how vegetation, habitat, and landscape features of urban forests relate to the prevalence of B. burgdorferi (the causative agent of Lyme disease) among blacklegged ticks.Entities:
Keywords: Anaplasma phagocytophilum; Babesia microti; Borrelia burgdorferi; Borrelia miyamotoi; Forest fragment; Invasive species; Lyme disease; Urbanization
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29361971 PMCID: PMC5781316 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2623-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Photographs of representative forest sites with R. multiflora invasion (a) and without R. multiflora (b)
Summary of vegetation and landscape covariates measured at the trap scale by forest type and location, modified from [11]. Covariates are summarized as mean ± standard error. Different superscript letters A, B, C denote significant differences among groups (P < 0.05) detected using analysis of variance (ANOVA), blocking on site, followed up with Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons when there were more than two groups
| Covariates | Uninvaded forests | Invaded: in rose | Invaded: not in rose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trap-level covariates | |||
| Nudds at 0.5–1.0 m (%) | 18.0 ± 3.9A | 73.9 ± 4.5B | 53.3 ± 5.9C |
| Rose cover, 12.5 m radius (%) | 2.5 ± 0.2A | 11.2 ± 0.6B | 7.0 ± 0.6C |
| Leaf litter volume (l/m2) | 28.0 ± 2.8A | 6.1 ± 1.4B | 6.7 ± 1.2B |
| Coarse woody debris (%) | 6.5 ± 0.9A | 3.4 ± 0.7B | 4.2 ± 0.7B |
| Rose cover, 2.5 m radius (%) | 0.0 ± 0.0A | 67.1 ± 2.2B | 3.5 ± 0.7A |
| Distance to agriculture (m) | 288.3 ± 54.7A | 156.7 ± 24.6B | 159.6 ± 24.6B |
| Distance to edge (m) | 67.8 ± 9.1A | 39.8 ± 8.8B | 41.9 ± 8.4B |
| Distance to road (m) | 154.7 ± 16.7 | 135 ± 18.1 | 133.4 ± 15.4 |
| Distance to residential (m) | 716.9 ± 377.6 | 186.2 ± 31.5 | 174.4 ± 32.9 |
| Distance to stream (m) | 371.8 ± 62.7A | 148.4 ± 35.7B | 134.1 ± 35.6B |
| Tick abundancea | 0.8 ± 0.1A | 0.4 ± 0.1B | 0.2 ± 0.0B |
| Mouse abundanceb | 2.7 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.9 | 2.1 ± 0.4 |
| Mean larvae per mouseb | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 |
aTick abundance values from traps that caught ticks which could be screened for pathogens [11]
bMouse abundance and larval burdens on mice from concurrent nest box study (Adalsteinsson et al., unpublished data). For trap-level estimates, we calculated the mean of the mice caught during fall at two nest boxes in closest proximity to the tick trap. Larval burdens are the average number of larvae per mice at either the two closest nest boxes
“Nudds” refers to Nudds board (Nudds [29]) measurements and “dbh” stands for diameter at breast height
Summary of vegetation and landscape covariates measured at the patch scale by forest type (invaded or uninvaded), modified from [11]. Covariates are summarized as mean ± standard error. Superscript letters A, B denote significant differences among groups (P < 0.05) detected using analysis of variance (ANOVA), blocking on site
| Covariates | Uninvaded forests | Invaded forests |
|---|---|---|
| Patch-level covariates | ||
| Rose cover (%) | 0.8 ± 0.5A | 36.9 ± 7.7B |
| Total understory cover (%) | 19.6 ± 4.4A | 41.6 ± 6.1B |
| Leaf litter volume (l/m2) | 13.9 ± 1.1A | 6.8 ± 0.9B |
| 8.5 ± 2.8A | 0.7 ± 0.2B | |
| 0.7 ± 0.1A | 21.2 ± 1.2B | |
| Year of canopy closure | 1916.7 ± 4.9A | 1963 ± 5.1B |
| Non-native stems (%) | 9.1 ± 2.7A | 40.0 ± 3.3B |
| Average tree dbh (m) | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.0 |
| 42.0 ± 6.4A | 11.0 ± 5.8B | |
| Mean mice per nest boxa | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.2 |
| Mean larvae per mousea | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.3 |
| Bird territory densityb | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 5.3 ± 0.8 |
aMouse abundance and larval burdens on mice from concurrent nest box study (Adalsteinsson et al., unpublished data). Total mouse captures and larvae on mice during fall were averaged across all 15 nest boxes in the site
bSpot mapping data for all ground-foraging bird species, collected during 2010 and 2011 breeding seasons [28]
“dbh” stands for diameter at breast height
WAIC table of best models. Variables in the model set are coarse woody debris (CWD), leaf litter volume (litter), distance to the nearest road (dist. Road), mouse abundance in fall (mice), total understory cover (total cover), and nymphal tick capture rate (tick abundance). Field headings refer to the effective number of parameters (pWAIC), the difference between WAIC estimates for each model and the top-ranked model (ΔWAIC), the Akaike weight (Weight), the standard error of the WAIC estimate (SE), and the standard error of ΔWAIC value (ΔSE)
| Model structure | ΔWAIC | pWAIC | Weight | SE | ΔSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CWD + litter + dist. Road + mice | 0.00 | 5.10 | 0.37 | 20.80 | NA |
| CWD + litter + dist. Road | 0.80 | 3.80 | 0.25 | 26.70 | 3.78 |
| CWD + litter + dist. Road + mice + total cover | 0.90 | 5.80 | 0.24 | 21.00 | 28.10 |
| CWD + litter + dist. Road + mice + tick abundance | 2.00 | 6.40 | 0.14 | 21.10 | 1.98 |
| NULL | 13.60 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 21.30 | 8.36 |
Fig. 2Distributions of differences between estimated Borrelia burgdorferi infection prevalence (posterior distributions) in nymphs between invaded and uninvaded forest fragments (a) and within invaded forests, between ticks captured within Rosa multiflora and outside of it (b). Y-axes display the density of samples from posterior distributions. Between invaded and uninvaded forests (a), there is 97% probability that B. burgdorferi prevalence is greater in invaded forests. Within invaded forests (b), there is only 64% probability that B. burgdorferi prevalence is lower within R. multiflora stands. Thus, we find support for a difference in B. burgdorferi prevalence at the forest-fragment scale (a), but not within invaded fragments (b)
Fig. 3Mean model-averaged partial predicted responses (with 89% posterior probability intervals) of Borrelia burgdorferi prevalence among ticks (proportion of infected ticks) to six different variables: woody debris (%) (a); leaf litter volume (L/m2) (b); tick abundance (nymphs/24 h) (c); understory cover (%) (d); mouse abundance (mice per nest box per check) (e); distance to nearest road (m) (f). Overall, B. burgdorferi prevalence is predicted to increase with increasing woody debris, understory cover, mouse abundance, and distance to nearest road, while increasing leaf litter volume and tick abundance should decrease B. burgdorferi prevalence among ticks