| Literature DB >> 34696393 |
Briana Spruill-Harrell1, Anna Pérez-Umphrey2, Leonardo Valdivieso-Torres3, Xueyuan Cao4, Robert D Owen5,6, Colleen B Jonsson1.
Abstract
Understanding how perturbations to trophic interactions influence virus-host dynamics is essential in the face of ongoing biodiversity loss and the continued emergence of RNA viruses and their associated zoonoses. Herein, we investigated the role of predator exclusion on rodent communities and the seroprevalence of hantaviruses within the Reserva Natural del Bosque Mbaracayú (RNBM), which is a protected area of the Interior Atlantic Forest (IAF). In the IAF, two sympatric rodent reservoirs, Akodon montensis and Oligoryzomys nigripes, harbor Jaborá and Juquitiba hantavirus (JABV, JUQV), respectively. In this study, we employed two complementary methods for predator exclusion: comprehensive fencing and trapping/removal. The goal of exclusion was to preclude the influence of predation on small mammals on the sampling grids and thereby potentially reduce rodent mortality. Following baseline sampling on three grid pairs with different habitats, we closed the grids and began predator removal. By sampling three habitat types, we controlled for habitat-specific effects, which is important for hantavirus-reservoir dynamics in neotropical ecosystems. Our six-month predator exclusion experiment revealed that the exclusion of terrestrial mammalian predators had little influence on the rodent community or the population dynamics of A. montensis and O. nigripes. Instead, fluctuations in species diversity and species abundances were influenced by sampling session and forest degradation. These results suggest that seasonality and landscape composition play dominant roles in the prevalence of hantaviruses in rodent reservoirs in the IAF ecosystem.Entities:
Keywords: Interior Atlantic Forest; grid enclosure; habitat degradation; hantaviruses; species diversity
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34696393 PMCID: PMC8538774 DOI: 10.3390/v13101963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Figure 1The left panel shows the location of the Reserva Natural del Bosque Mbaracayú (RNBM) in eastern Paraguay near the border with Brazil and is represented with a black box. In the right panel, an enlarged photograph of the RNBM is outlined in red, and the location of the grids is shown. Rodents were sampled from six grids (three enclosed—H, D, C) and three unenclosed—B, A, G). Grids were designated as “least degraded”—B and H, “moderately degraded”—A and D, and “most degraded”—G and C. The image was made using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved.
Figure 2Experimental field design. (A) Photo taken of the two-meter-high chain link fencing that was constructed on the three experimental grids—H, D, C. (B). Cage trap placed against the inside of the fences, also showing the half-meter high small-mesh chain link fencing. (C) Pitfall trap used to capture small terrestrial mammalian predators. (D) Image of four 5 m drift fences extending in the four cardinal directions from the pitfall trap mouth. (E) Timeline of the study. Pre-treatment sampling (PreTrt) was performed during the winter during June–July 2016. The first post-predator removal session was performed at the beginning of the summer during October–November (ON2016). The final capture only session was performed at the end of the summer during February–March 2017 (FM2017). The timeline image was created with BioRender.com, accessed on 18 September 2021.
Summary of the unique captures per grid and session.
| PreTrt | ON2016 | FM2017 | Total | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grid | B | A | G | H | D | C | B | A | G | H | D | C | B | A | G | H | D | C | |
| Enclosure | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | |
| Predator Removal | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | |
| Degradation Level | Least | Moderate | Most | Least | Moderate | Most | Least | Moderate | Most | Least | Moderate | Most | Least | Moderate | Most | Least | Moderate | Most | |
| Species | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| 27 | 28 | 16 | 21 | 7 | 20 | 13 | 18 | 12 | 18 | 15 | 30 | 42 | 61 | 18 | 48 | 10 | 55 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 4 | 12 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 15 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 10 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
|
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
|
|
| 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 13 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Species Richness | 6 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 6 | |
Figure 3The number of unique individuals per session by age class for Akodon montensis, Hylaeamys megacephalus, Oligoryzomys nigripes, and all other species. Juveniles are shaded in black, subadults are shaded in light gray, and adults are shown in white. Pre-treatment sampling (PreTrt) was performed during the winter during June–July 2016. The first post-predator removal session was performed at the beginning of the summer during October–November (ON2016). The final capture only session was performed at the end of the summer during February–March 2017 (FM2017).
Linear mixed effects model with treatment, session, and degradation level as fixed effects and species diversity (1-D) as the dependent variable. Results show model coefficient estimates (β), the standard error of those estimates (SE), and associated p values.
| Effect a | Level | Estimate ( | SE |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Yes | −0.043 | 0.040 | 0.3950 |
| Session | ON2016 | −0.040 | 0.044 | 0.3884 |
| FM2017 | −0.045 | 0.044 | 0.3343 | |
| Degradation Level | Moderately | 0.178 | 0.049 | 0.0689 |
| Most | 0.212 | 0.049 | 0.0504 |
a For each effect, the reference group for each level are the levels not shown. The “Treatment” effect level is in reference to the control (unenclosed) grids. The “Session” effect level is in reference to the “PreTrt” session. The “Degradation level” effect is in reference to the least degraded grids.
Hantavirus seroprevalence by sampling session and degradation level.
|
|
| Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Level | Pos/Tested | % Pos | Pos/Tested | % Pos | Pos/Tested | % Pos |
| Session a | PreTrt | 2/100 | 2.0% | 2/13 | 15.4% | 4/167 | 2.4% |
| ON2016 | 5/74 | 6.8% | 3/20 | 15.0% | 8/124 | 6.5% | |
| FM2017 | 7/228 | 3.1% | 5/33 | 15.2% | 12/341 | 3.5% | |
| Degradation | Least | 1/146 | 0.7% | 1/8 | 12.5% | 2/190 | 1.1% |
| Moderately | 4/126 | 3.2% | 3/27 | 11.1% | 7/216 | 3.2% | |
| Most | 9/130 | 6.9% | 6/31 | 19.4% | 15/226 | 6.6% | |
| Total | 14/402 | 3.5% | 10/66 | 15.2% | 24/632 | 3.8% | |
a Pre-treatment sampling (PreTrt) was performed during the winter during June–July 2016. The first post-predator removal session was performed at the beginning of the summer during October–November (ON2016). The final capture only session was performed at the end of the summer during February–March 2017 (FM2017).
Univariate logistic regression tests for the association of age, sex, weight, reproduction condition, and tail scar with the presence of antibodies to Andes orthohantavirus. Outputs of each model are the odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and associated p values. We also report the number of seropositive and seronegative individuals for each predictor level and the proportion of individuals at each level (expressed as a percentage).
| Species | Predictor | Level | No. Neg (%) | No. Pos (%) | Odds Ratio a | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Age | Adult | 175 (94%) | 11 (6%) | 3.847 | 1.251–15.297 | 0.0176 |
| Juvenile | 8 (100%) | 0 | 3.454 | 0.025–40.153 | 0.4877 | ||
| Subadult | 205 (99%) | 3 (1%) | |||||
| Sex | Male | 205 (94%) | 12 (6%) | 4.465 | 1.314–23.063 | 0.0144 | |
| Female | 183 (99%) | 2 (1%) | |||||
| Weight b | 388 (6~63) | 14 (14~59) | 1.135 | 1.083–1.196 | <0.0001 | ||
| Reprod. Condition | Active | 68 (92%) | 6 (8%) | 3.578 | 1.195–10.251 | 0.0240 | |
| Inactive | 320 (98%) | 8 (2%) | |||||
| Tail Scar | Yes | 135 (92%) | 11 (8%) | 6.123 | 1.988–24.367 | 0.0012 | |
| No | 252 (99%) | 3 (1%) | |||||
|
| Age | Adult | 46 (82%) | 10 (18%) | 4.290 | 0.473–569.134 | 0.2358 |
| Juvenile | 1 (100%) | 0 | 6.333 | 0.029–1443.403 | 0.4150 | ||
| Subadult | 9 (100%) | 0 | |||||
| Sex | Male | 33 (77%) | 10 (23%) | 14.731 | 1.742–1928.789 | 0.0083 | |
| Female | 23 (100%) | 0 | |||||
| Weight b | 56 (6~30) | 10 (19~31) | 1.264 | 1.052–1.577 | 0.0109 | ||
| Reprod. Condition | Active | 28 (87.5%) | 4 (12.5%) | 0.692 | 0.175–2.540 | 0.5796 | |
| Inactive | 28 (82%) | 6 (18%) | |||||
| Tail Scar | Yes | 1 (50%) | 1 (50%) | 5.842 | 0.440–78.007 | 0.1620 | |
| No | 55 (86%) | 9 (14%) |
a For each predictor level, odds ratios are in reference to the last level listed. b weight ranges in grams are listed following the number of seronegative/seropositive animals.
Univariate logistic regression tests for the association of grid enclosure, session, and degradation level with the presence of antibodies to Andes orthohantavirus. Outputs of each model are the odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and associated p values.
| Species | Predictor a | Level | Odds Ratio a | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Treatment | Yes | 0.679 | 0.198–1.981 | 0.4901 |
| Session | ON2016 | 3.118 | 0.728–17.749 | 0.1270 | |
| FM2017 | 1.334 | 0.349–7.239 | 0.6907 | ||
| Degradation Level | Moderately | 3.563 | 0.649–35.88 | 0.1488 | |
| Most | 7.584 | 1.713–71.41 | 0.0054 | ||
|
| Treatment | Yes | 0.692 | 0.175–2.540 | 0.5796 |
| Session | ON2016 | 0.920 | 0.153–6.285 | 0.9272 | |
| FM2017 | 0.888 | 0.182–5.514 | 0.8877 | ||
| Degradation Level | Moderately | 0.714 | 0.097–8.211 | 0.7552 | |
| Most | 1.275 | 0.213–13.624 | 0.8046 |
a For each predictor, the reference group for each level are the levels not shown. The odds ratio for “Treatment” is in reference to the control (unenclosed) grids. The odds ratio for “Session” is in reference to the “PreTrt” session. The odds ratio for “Degradation level” effect is in reference to the least degraded grids.