| Literature DB >> 34556747 |
Madhav Erraguntla1, Darpit Dave2, Josef Zapletal2, Kevin Myles3, Zach N Adelman3, Tyler D Pohlenz3, Mark Lawley2.
Abstract
Mosquitoes transmit several infectious diseases that pose significant threat to human health. Temperature along with other environmental factors at breeding and resting locations play a role in the organismal development and abundance of mosquitoes. Accurate analysis of mosquito population dynamics requires information on microclimatic conditions at breeding and resting locations. In this study, we develop a regression model to characterize microclimatic temperature based on ambient environmental conditions. Data were collected by placing sensor loggers at resting and breeding locations such as storm drains across Houston, TX. Corresponding weather data was obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website. Features extracted from these data sources along with contextual information on location were used to develop a Generalized Linear Model for predicting microclimate temperatures. We also analyzed mosquito population dynamics for Aedes albopictus under ambient and microclimatic conditions using system dynamic (SD) modelling to demonstrate the need for accurate microclimatic temperatures in population models. The microclimate prediction model had an R2 value of ~ 95% and average prediction error of ~ 1.5 °C indicating that microclimate temperatures can be reliably estimated from the ambient environmental conditions. SD model analysis indicates that some microclimates in Texas could result in larger populations of juvenile and adult Aedes albopictus mosquitoes surviving the winter without requiring dormancy.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34556747 PMCID: PMC8460783 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98316-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Logger placements: (left) in the open, (right) inside water meter.
Figure 2Logger placements: (left) inside storm drain, (right) under the shade.
Figure 3Ambient versus microclimatic temperatures (left) in open (right) tree coverage.
Figure 4Ambient versus microclimatic temperatures in storm drain location (L) in August (R) in January.
Figure 5Storm drain temperature recorded at different depths.
Figure 6Scatter plot indicating non-linear relationship between ambient and microclimatic temperatures.
Variables used for modelling.
| Variable name | Description | Estimate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lux | Luminous intensity | − 0.00016 | 0.00222 |
| Hourly Dew Point Temperature | Dew point temperature | − 0.05691 | < 0.00001 |
| Hourly Dry Bulb Temperature | Ambient temperature | − 0.1493 | < 0.00001 |
| Hourly Precipitation | Amount of rainfall recorded every hour | − 0.90674 | < 0.00001 |
| Hourly Relative Humidity | Relative humidity | 0.01502 | < 0.00001 |
| Hourly Station Pressure | Pressure obtained from the weather sensor | − 1.41615 | < 0.00001 |
| Hourly Wet Bulb Temperature | Wet bulb temperature | − 0.05448 | 0.00001 |
| Diurnal Range | Difference between the maximum and minimum ambient temperature recorded in the past 24 Hours | 0.10055 | < 0.00001 |
| 3 Hour Moving Average | Moving average of ambient temperature in the past 3 h | 0.09778 | < 0.00001 |
| 5 Hour Moving Average | Moving average of ambient temperature in the past 5 h | − 0.17148 | < 0.00001 |
| 7 Hour Moving Average | Moving average of Dry bulb temperature in the past 7 h | 0.27072 | < 0.00001 |
| Square of Diurnal Range Square | − 0.00293 | < 0.00001 | |
| Square of Ambient Temperature | 0.00192 | < 0.00001 | |
| Depth | Depth of the logger | − 0.32745 | < 0.00001 |
| Month (Jan Baseline) | Month of the year | ||
| Month 2 | 0.64201 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 3 | 1.57424 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 6 | 8.17883 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 7 | 9.80838 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 8 | 9.58742 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 9 | 8.33488 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 10 | 6.6148 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 11 | 3.55702 | < 0.00001 | |
| Month 12 | 1.16736 | < 0.00001 | |
| Time (Hour 24 Baseline) | Hour of the day | < 0.00001 | |
| Hour 1 | 0.11006 | 0.04926 | |
| Hour 2 | 0.11144 | 0.04739 | |
| Hour 3 | 0.15596 | 0.0055 | |
| Hour 4 | 0.20804 | 0.00023 | |
| Hour 5 | 0.1985 | 0.00044 | |
| Hour 6 | 0.14471 | 0.01036 | |
| Hour 7 | 0.05316 | 0.35103 | |
| Hour 8 | − 0.05456 | 0.34973 | |
| Hour 9 | − 0.24203 | 0.00001 | |
| Hour 10 | − 0.36265 | < 0.00001 | |
| Hour 11 | − 0.26118 | < 0.00002 | |
| Hour 12 | − 0.11427 | 0.0652 | |
| Hour 13 | 0.08329 | 0.18359 | |
| Hour 14 | 0.22539 | < 0.00003 | |
| Hour 15 | 0.2807 | < 0.00001 | |
| Hour 16 | 0.24684 | 0.00004 | |
| Hour 17 | 0.21301 | 0.00035 | |
| Hour 18 | 0.10169 | 0.08383 | |
| Hour 19 | 0.03344 | 0.56421 | |
| Hour 20 | − 0.06257 | 0.27327 | |
| Hour 21 | − 0.13673 | 0.01549 | |
| Hour 22 | − 0.12945 | 0.02076 | |
| Hour 23 | − 0.06749 | 0.22592 | |
Figure 7Population dynamics model.
Temperature-dependent variables.
| Parameter | Definition | References |
|---|---|---|
| Egg hatching rate | [ | |
| Larval development rate | [ | |
| Pupal development rate | [ | |
| Larval mortality rate | [ | |
| Pupal mortality rate | [ | |
| β | Oviposition rate by each female | [ |
| Gestating adult development rate | [ | |
| Adult mortality rate | [ |
Constant parameters.
| Parameter | Definition | Value | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Egg mortality rate | 0.05 | [ | |
| Emerging adult mortality rate | 0.1 | [ | |
| Adult mortality related to risky behavior | 0.08 | [ | |
| Emerging adult development rate | 0.4 | [ | |
| Blood-feeding adult development rate | 0.2 | [ | |
| Ovipositing adult development rate | 0.2 | [ | |
| Larval carrying capacity | 250,000 | [ | |
| Pupal carrying capacity | 250,000 | [ | |
| σ | Percentage of females at emergence stage | 0.5 | [ |
| Temperature development days required for gestation | 77 | [ | |
| Minimum temperature (°C) required for gestation | 10 | [ |
Prediction performance for different loggers.
| Logger ID | Zip code | RMSE |
|---|---|---|
| U43 | 77,336 | 1.83 |
| U40 | 77,346 | 1.65 |
| U84 | 77,379 | 1.43 |
| U76 | 77,069 | 1.53 |
| U39 | 77,070 | 1.58 |
| U69 | 77,520 | 1.16 |
| U41 | 77,008 | 1.59 |
| U59 | 77,521 | 2.15 |
Figure 8(Left) time sequenced actual versus predicted values for U40; (Right) actual vs predicted values of all the loggers.
Figure 9Linear regression diagnostic plots: (Left) QQ-plot (Right) residual plots.
Figure 10Eggs and Juvenile population under (a) ambient and (b) microclimatic conditions.
Figure 11Adult mosquito population under (a) ambient and (b) microclimatic conditions.