| Literature DB >> 35271575 |
Miarisoa Rindra Rakotoarinia1,2, F Guillaume Blanchet3,4,5, Dominique Gravel3, David R Lapen6, Patrick A Leighton1,2, Nicholas H Ogden2,7, Antoinette Ludwig2,7.
Abstract
Weather and land use can significantly impact mosquito abundance and presence, and by consequence, mosquito-borne disease (MBD) dynamics. Knowledge of vector ecology and mosquito species response to these drivers will help us better predict risk from MBD. In this study, we evaluated and compared the independent and combined effects of weather and land use on mosquito species occurrence and abundance in Eastern Ontario, Canada. Data on occurrence and abundance (245,591 individuals) of 30 mosquito species were obtained from mosquito capture at 85 field sites in 2017 and 2018. Environmental variables were extracted from weather and land use datasets in a 1-km buffer around trapping sites. The relative importance of weather and land use on mosquito abundance (for common species) or occurrence (for all species) was evaluated using multivariate hierarchical statistical models. Models incorporating both weather and land use performed better than models that include weather only for approximately half of species (59% for occurrence model and 50% for abundance model). Mosquito occurrence was mainly associated with temperature whereas abundance was associated with precipitation and temperature combined. Land use was more often associated with abundance than occurrence. For most species, occurrence and abundance were positively associated with forest cover but for some there was a negative association. Occurrence and abundance of some species (47% for occurrence model and 88% for abundance model) were positively associated with wetlands, but negatively associated with urban (Culiseta melanura and Anopheles walkeri) and agriculture (An. quadrimaculatus, Cs. minnesotae and An. walkeri) environments. This study provides predictive relationships between weather, land use and mosquito occurrence and abundance for a wide range of species including those that are currently uncommon, yet known as arboviruses vectors. Elucidation of these relationships has the potential to contribute to better prediction of MBD risk, and thus more efficiently targeted prevention and control measures.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35271575 PMCID: PMC8912203 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262376
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study region and sampling site locations.
Public Health Ontario in Ottawa (29 sites) and the South Nation River watershed (56 sub-sites). Figure made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.
Fig 2Seasonal changes in biweekly averaged abundance for all species over 2017 and 2018 collection period in Ottawa and the South Nation river sites.
The “other species” are rare species with average abundance less than 10. They include An. barberi, An. walkeri, Cs. melanura, Cs. minnesotae, Cs. morsitatns, Cx. salinarius, Cx. territans, Oc. abserratus, Oc. cantator, Oc. communis, Oc. dorsalis, Oc. excrucians, Oc. fitchii, Oc. intrudens, Oc. japonicus, Oc. provocans, Oc. punctor, Oc. sticticus, Oc. triseriatus, Ps. ciliata and Ps. ferox.
Community-level explained variance of the four models.
| Community-level adjusted pseudo-R2 of weather-only model | Community-level adjusted pseudo-R2 of weather-and-land-use model | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.26 | 0.28 |
|
| 0.21 | 0.22 |
Fig 3Variation partitioning according to species among weather, land use, spatial fixed effect and the temporal and spatial unit random effects from the occurrence-model.
Community-level adjusted Efron’s pseudo-R2 of weather-only model (0.24) was compared to that of weather-and-land-use model (0.28). Each pair of bars corresponds to one species.
Fig 4Variation partitioning according to species among weather, land use, spatial fixed effect and the temporal and spatial unit random effects from the abundance-model.
Community-level adjusted Efron’s pseudo-R2 of weather-only model (0.21) was compared to that of weather-and-land-use model (0.22). Each pair of bars corresponds to one species.
Comparison of the significant and relatively strong effects of weather on mosquito occurrence and abundance of the 12 commonest species.
| Genus | Species | Adjusted pseudo-R2 | Weather adjusted pseudo-R2 | Weather day of capture | Weather averaged 5d before capture | Weather averaged 30d before capture | Weather averaged 90d before capture | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precipitation | Min. temperature | Max. temperature | Precipitation | Min. temperature | Max. temperature | Precipitation | Min. temperature | Max. temperature | Precipitation | Min. temperature | Max. temperature | |||||
|
|
|
| -0.02 | 0.00 | - | + | - | - | + | |||||||
|
| 0.68 | 0.27 | - | + | - | + | - | - | + | - | ||||||
|
|
| 0.99 | 0.10 | - | + | + | - | + | + | |||||||
|
| 0.41 | 0.09 | - | + | + | + | ||||||||||
|
| 0.16 | 0.03 | + | + | ||||||||||||
|
|
| 0.31 | 0.09 | + | - | + | + | - | ||||||||
|
| 0.15 | 0.05 | + | - | + | - | - | + | - | + | - | |||||
| 0.23 | 0.05 | - | - | + | - | + | + | - | ||||||||
| 0.07 | 0.02 | - | - | + | - | |||||||||||
|
|
| 0.55 | 0.11 | |||||||||||||
| -0.02 | 0.00 | - | - | + | ||||||||||||
|
| 0.20 | 0.05 | - | - | + | - | + | + | - | - | ||||||
|
| 0.25 | 0.04 | - | - | - | + | - | |||||||||
| 0.14 | 0.02 | + | - | + | + | - | ||||||||||
| 0.05 | 0.01 | + | - | - | + | - | + | + | - | |||||||
| 0.07 | 0.01 | - | - | + | + | + | ||||||||||
| 0.26 | 0.03 | - | + | + | + | - | ||||||||||
| 0.09 | 0.02 | - | + | - | - | + | - | + | - | |||||||
| 0.12 | 0.02 | + | - | - | - | + | + | - | ||||||||
|
| 0.61 | 0.04 | - | + | - | - | + | - | + | + | ||||||
|
| 0.35 | 0.21 | + | - | - | - | - | + | + | - | ||||||
| 0.42 | 0.05 | + | - | + | - | |||||||||||
|
| 0.41 | 0.15 | + | + | - | - | + | - | ||||||||
|
| 0.25 | 0.03 | - | + | + | - | ||||||||||
| 0.63 | 0.35 | - | + | + | - | + | - | - | ||||||||
|
| -0.02 | 0.00 | - | + | + | + | ||||||||||
| 0.19 | 0.04 | + | - | + | - | - | - | |||||||||
|
|
| 0.07 | 0.02 | - | - | + | - | - | + | + | ||||||
| -0.06 | -0.02 | - | - | + | - | - | + | - | + | |||||||
|
| 0.21 | 0.01 | - | + | ||||||||||||
| 0.04 | 0.03 | + | - | + | - | + | + | + | ||||||||
| 0.19 | 0.07 | - | + | + | + | + | - | + | ||||||||
|
| 0.72 | 0.30 | - | + | - | + | - | |||||||||
|
| 0.11 | 0.02 | - | + | - | + | - | + | + | + | ||||||
|
| 0.51 | 0.07 | - | + | - | - | - | + | ||||||||
| 0.33 | 0.06 | + | - | - | + | + | - | - | ||||||||
| 0.18 | 0.03 | - | + | - | + | - | + | + | ||||||||
| 0.15 | 0.04 | + | - | + | ||||||||||||
| 0.24 | 0.06 | + | - | + | + | + | - | |||||||||
+ and—signs represent a positive (average of the marginal distribution of the model parameter above zero) or a negative (average of the marginal distribution of the model parameter below zero) association between the weather variables and mosquito occurrence or abundance. Orange cells show relationships between weather variables and the response variables (occurrence / abundance) that are most precise (narrow distribution) and important. Grey cells represent species that showed either a negative value of the adjusted Efron’s pseudo-R2 or a deterioration of model goodness of fit once land use was added.
Comparison of the significant and relatively strong effects of land use on mosquito occurrence and abundance of the 12 most common species.
| Genus | Species | Adjusted pseudo-R2 | Land use adjusted pseudo-R2 | Land use | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water | Wetland | Agriculture | Urban | Forest | Shrubland | Bare | |||||
|
|
|
| -0.02 | -0.0017 | + | - | + | + | - | ||
|
| 0.68 | 0.0143 | - | + | + | + | - | ||||
|
|
| 0.99 | 0.0118 | + | + | - | - | + | |||
|
| 0.41 | 0.0521 | + | - | - | - | + | + | |||
|
| 0.16 | 0.0383 | + | + | - | - | - | + | - | ||
|
|
| 0.31 | 0.0175 | + | - | + | - | - | |||
|
| 0.15 | 0.0131 | + | + | - | - | - | - | |||
| 0.23 | 0.0153 | - | - | - | - | + | - | ||||
| 0.07 | 0.0076 | - | + | + | - | - | |||||
|
|
| 0.55 | 0.0464 | + | - | + | - | + | |||
| -0.02 | -0.0008 | - | - | - | + | ||||||
|
| 0.20 | 0.0097 | - | - | - | + | - | - | |||
|
| 0.25 | 0.0379 | - | + | + | + | - | - | |||
| 0.14 | 0.0053 | + | - | - | - | ||||||
| 0.05 | 0.0015 | - | + | - | + | - | - | ||||
| 0.07 | 0.0017 | + | - | - | - | ||||||
| 0.26 | 0.0059 | - | + | - | - | ||||||
| 0.09 | 0.0051 | - | + | - | - | + | - | - | |||
| 0.12 | 0.0027 | - | + | - | - | ||||||
|
| 0.61 | 0.0145 | - | + | - | - | - | ||||
|
| 0.35 | 0.0108 | - | - | + | + | - | - | |||
| 0.42 | 0.0073 | - | + | - | - | ||||||
|
| 0.41 | 0.0151 | - | + | + | - | + | + | - | ||
|
| 0.25 | 0.0042 | + | + | + | + | - | - | |||
| 0.63 | 0.0113 | - | - | - | + | - | |||||
|
| -0.02 | -0.0007 | - | + | - | - | + | - | - | ||
| 0.19 | 0.0074 | - | + | - | - | + | - | - | |||
|
|
| 0.07 | 0.0074 | - | + | - | + | - | |||
| -0.06 | -0.0013 | - | + | - | - | - | |||||
|
| 0.21 | 0.0107 | + | - | - | - | + | ||||
| 0.04 | 0.0010 | + | - | - | - | + | + | ||||
| 0.19 | 0.0045 | + | + | - | - | - | + | - | |||
|
| 0.72 | 0.0113 | - | + | - | - | + | - | |||
|
| 0.11 | 0.0222 | + | - | + | + | |||||
|
| 0.51 | 0.0108 | - | + | - | + | + | - | - | ||
| 0.33 | 0.0463 | - | + | + | + | - | - | ||||
| 0.18 | 0.0462 | - | + | + | + | + | - | - | |||
| 0.15 | 0.0083 | - | + | - | - | - | - | ||||
| 0.24 | 0.0105 | + | + | + | + | - | - | ||||
+ and—signs represent a positive (average of the marginal distribution of the model parameter above zero) or a negative (average of the marginal distribution of the model parameter below zero) association between the land use variables and the mosquito occurrence or abundance. Orange cells show the relationships between the land use variables and the response variables (occurrence / abundance) that are more precise and important. Grey cells represent species that showed either a negative value of the adjusted Efron’s pseudo-R2 or a deterioration of model goodness of fit once land use was added.