| Literature DB >> 32778177 |
Cindy Bregnard1, Olivier Rais2, Maarten Jeroen Voordouw3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To predict the risk of tick-borne disease, it is critical to understand the ecological factors that determine the abundance of ticks. In Europe, the sheep tick (Ixodes ricinus) transmits a number of important diseases including Lyme borreliosis. The aim of this long-term study was to determine the abiotic and biotic factors driving the annual abundance of I. ricinus at a location in Switzerland where Lyme borreliosis is endemic.Entities:
Keywords: Beech tree; Climate change; Fagus sylvatica; Ixodes ricinus; Lyme disease; Mast years; Tick population ecology; Tick-borne disease
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32778177 PMCID: PMC7418309 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-04291-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Model selection results for the linear models of the log10-transformed cumulative nymphal density
| Rank | Model structure | logLik | AIC | ΔAIC | Weight1 | Weight2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | log10(CND) ~ S+Y+B+RH2 | 7 | 33.0 | − 48.7 | 0.0 | 76.0 | 76.0 | 73.2 |
| 2 | log10(CND) ~ S+Y+B+RH2+S:Y | 9 | 33.6 | − 43.6 | 5.2 | 6.0 | 82.0 | 72.4 |
| 3 | log10(CND) ~ S+Y+B+SD2 | 7 | 30.4 | − 43.5 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 87.0 | 69.7 |
| 4 | log10(CND) ~ S+Y+B+T2 | 7 | 30.4 | − 43.4 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 92.0 | 69.6 |
| 5 | log10(CND) ~ S+Y+B+RH2y-1 | 7 | 29.4 | − 41.4 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 94.0 | 68.1 |
| 6 | log10(CND) ~ S+Y+B+SD2y-1 | 7 | 29.1 | − 40.8 | 7.9 | 1.0 | 95.0 | 67.7 |
Notes: Model selection results are shown for the linear models with normal errors of the log10-transformed CND response variable. The explanatory variables were elevation site, year, beech masting 2 years prior, and the climate variables from the field and the Climap-net database. The models are ranked according to their Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Of the 52 models in the set, only the 6 top models are shown for which the cumulative support (Weight 2) is 95%. Shown for each model are the model rank (Rank), model structure (see below for explanation of variable acronyms), model degrees of freedom (Df), log-likelihood (logLik), Akaike information criterion (AIC), difference in the AIC value from the top model (ΔAIC), model weight (Weight1), cumulative model weight (Weight2), and adjusted r-squared value (r2). Additional file 1: Section 6 shows the results from the full model selection. The acronyms for the explanatory variables are as follows: S, site; Y, year; B, beech mast score 2 years prior; S:Y, interaction between site and year; RH2, mean annual relative humidity from the field data in the same year; SD2, mean annual saturation deficit from the field data in the same year; T2, mean annual temperature from the field data in the same year; RH2y-1, mean annual relative humidity from the field data in the previous year (y-1); SD2y-1, mean annual saturation deficit from the field data in the previous year (y-1)
Fig. 1Annual variation in log10-transformed cumulative nymphal density (CND) and beech tree mast score 2 years prior. The log10-transformed CND (dots and solid lines) and the beech tree mast score 2 years prior (grey bars) are shown over time for each of the three elevation sites (low, medium, high) on Chaumont Mountain. The log10-transformed CND increased significantly over the 15-year study period (2004–2018). Years of high seed production by beech trees (beech masting index) are strongly positively correlated with high log10-transformed CND two years later. The CND is an estimate of the annual abundance of I. ricinus nymphs per 100 m2 and is calculated by integrating the area under the curve of the 12 monthly estimates of the number of questing nymphs collected by dragging an area of 100 m2. Beech tree mast scores range from 1 to 5 (1, very poor mast; 2, poor mast; 3, moderate mast; 4, good mast; and 5, full mast)
Fig. 2Effect of elevation on the log10-transformed cumulative nymphal density (CND). According to the model parameter estimates, the CND (on the original scale) at the low elevation was 11.4% higher than the medium elevation and 43.1% higher than the high elevation (partial r2 = 26.6%). The parameter estimates used to calculate the effect sizes were taken from the best model in Table 1, which had 76.0% of the support and explained 73.2% of the inter-annual variation in the log10-transformed CND
Fig. 3Effect of year on the log10-transformed cumulative nymphal density (CND). According to the model parameter estimates, the CND (on the original scale) increased by 88.4% over the 15-year study period (partial r2 = 14.8%). The parameter estimates used to calculate the effect sizes were taken from the best model in Table 1, which had 76.0% of the support and explained 73.2% of the inter-annual variation in the log10-transformed CND
Fig. 4Effect of beech mast score 2 years prior on the log10-transformed cumulative nymphal density (CND). According to the model parameter estimates, increasing the beech mast score from 1 (poor mast) to 5 (full mast) increased the CND (on the original scale) by 86.2% (partial r2 = 26.9%). The parameter estimates used to calculate the effect sizes were taken from the best model in Table 1, which had 76.0% of the support and explained 73.2% of the inter-annual variation in the log10-transformed CND
Fig. 5Effect of the field-collected mean annual relative humidity on the log10-transformed cumulative nymphal density (CND). According to the model parameter estimates, increasing the field-collected mean annual relative humidity from 50.0% to 75.0% decreased the CND from the same year (on the original scale) by 46.4% (partial r2 = 7.6%). The mean annual relative humidity was calculated for the same year as the CND (i.e. no time lag). The parameter estimates used to calculate the effect sizes were taken from the best model in Table 1, which had 76.0% of the support and explained 73.2% of the inter-annual variation in the log10-transformed CND