| Literature DB >> 35205170 |
Xing Yuan1,2, Linsheng Yang1,2, Hairong Li1,2, Li Wang1.
Abstract
Plague persists in the plague natural foci today. Although previous studies have found climate drives plague dynamics, quantitative analysis on animal plague risk under climate change remains understudied. Here, we analyzed plague dynamics in the Tibetan Plateau (TP) which is a climate-sensitive area and one of the most severe animal plague areas in China to disentangle variations in marmot plague enzootic foci, diffusion patterns, and their possible links with climate and anthropogenic factors. Specifically, we developed a time-sharing ecological niche modelling framework to identify finer potential plague territories and their temporal epidemic trends. Models were conducted by assembling animal records and multi-source ecophysiological variables with actual ecological effects (both climatic predictors and landscape factors) and driven by matching plague strains to periods corresponding to meteorological datasets. The models identified abundant animal plague territories over the TP and suggested the spatial patterns varied spatiotemporal dimension across the years, undergoing repeated spreading and contractions. Plague risk increased in the 1980s and 2000s, with the risk area increasing by 17.7 and 55.5 thousand km2, respectively. The 1990s and 2010s were decades of decreased risk, with reductions of 71.9 and 39.5 thousand km2, respectively. Further factor analysis showed that intrinsic conditions (i.e., elevation, soil, and geochemical landscape) provided fundamental niches. In contrast, climatic conditions, especially precipitation, led to niche differentiation and resulted in varied spatial patterns. Additionally, while increased human interference may temporarily reduce plague risks, there is a strong possibility of recurrence. This study reshaped the plague distribution at multiple time scales in the TP and revealed multifactorial synergistic effects on the spreading and contraction of plague foci, confirming that TP plague is increasingly sensitive to climate change. These findings may facilitate groups to take measures to combat the plague threats and prevent potential future human plague from occurring.Entities:
Keywords: Himalayan marmot; Tibetan Plateau; climate change; plague natural foci; spatiotemporal distribution
Year: 2022 PMID: 35205170 PMCID: PMC8869688 DOI: 10.3390/biology11020304
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Environmental variables used in Maxent models for Himalaya plague in the TP.
| Data Type | Variables | Biological Relevance | Abbreviation | Units |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topography | DEM | Habitats of hosts: Number of marmot holes is largest at an altitude between 3200–3500 m [ | E | m |
| Distance to river | Field investigation: Almost all marmot holes are around one river; | D | km | |
| Gravity | Effect in astronomy: Geomagnetism may affect the plague cycle [ | G | mGal | |
| Vegetation | NDVI | NDVI → Population density: Higher density is often linked to higher prevalence [ | NDVI | — |
| Soil | Geochemical landscape | Evolution of | GL | — |
| Soil type | ST | — | ||
| pH | pH | −log (H+) | ||
| Soil moisture | Vegetation → Population density, migration→ Increased risks [ | SM | mm | |
| Climate | PDSI | Aridity is significantly associated with ecological risk factors for relapsing plague [ | PDSI | — |
| Precipitation | Phenology [ | PR | mm | |
| Solar Radiation | Governing the surface temperature and hydrologic cycle [ | SR | W/m2 | |
| Temperature | T | °C |
Predicted results at different times over TP.
| Phases | The Average Test/Training AUC | Threshold | Average Risk | Areas of Prediction (Thousand km2) | Areas of Published Data (Thousand km2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 0.93/0.95 | 0.169 | 0.041 | 301.9 | 99.79 |
| S2 | 0.90/0.95 | 0.319 | 0.055 | 319.6 | — |
| S3 | 0.94/0.96 | 0.218 | 0.033 | 247.7 | 408.38 |
| S4 | 0.92/0.95 | 0.259 | 0.045 | 303.2 | 634.49 |
| S5 | 0.93/0.96 | 0.180 | 0.032 | 263.7 | 687.04 |
Figure 1Distributions of plague risk at various stages. (A) The distributions of plague risk in 1954–1979 (White blocks are due to the scarcity of Landsat data with cloud cover less than 10); (B) The distributions of plague risk in 1980–1989; (C) The distributions of plague risk in 1990–1999; (D) The distributions of plague risk in 2000–2009; (E) The distributions of plague risk in 2010–2016. Furthermore, most of the historical plague data shown in the bottom right corner has been anonymized by aggregation at the county level, fulfilling rules of confidentiality.
Figure 2The results of the Jackknife test of variable importance. (A) The training gains of each variable if the model was run in isolation, and the variable had useful information when the gain was high. This is useful for identifying the variables that contribute the most individually; (B) The reduction in gains when the variable is excluded compared to all variables. If it reduces the gain most when it is excluded, the variable has unique information. Additionally, intrinsic features include GL, ST, D, pH, E, and G; variable features include PR, SR, SM, NDVI, PDSI, and T.
Changes of risk areas at different levels of human disturbance.
| Change in Human Footprints from 1993 to 2009 | Mean Risk in S2 | Mean Risk in S3 | Mean Risk in S5 | Areas with Risk > 0.5 in S2(%) | Areas with Risk > 0.5 in S3(%) | Areas with Risk > 0.5 in S5(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −19–−0.01 | 0.157 | 0.072 | 0.068 | 8.706 | 1.997 | 1.198 |
| 0 | 0.094 | 0.058 | 0.055 | 4.999 | 1.68 | 1.641 |
| 0–2 | 0.091 | 0.063 | 0.052 | 3.778 | 1.866 | 1.588 |
| 2–5 | 0.114 | 0.060 | 0.053 | 6.602 | 2.117 | 2.268 |
| 5–10 | 0.107 | 0.065 | 0.062 | 5.310 | 2.438 | 3.369 |
| 10–20 | 0.149 | 0.082 | 0.077 | 7.5 | 2.5 | 4.167 |
Average plague risk at different intensity of the human activities.
Figure 3Response curves of environmental variables. The response curves were derived from Maxent runs with variables used in isolation to avoid interference with other variables. They describe how the logistic prediction responds with alteration of each environmental variable. (A) The response curves of distance to river in different time; (B) The response curves of rainfall in different time; (C) The response curves of solar radiation in different time; (D) The response curves of temperature in different time; (E) The response curves of elevation in different time; (F) The response curves of soil moisture in different time.