Perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good?
Background This paper aims to illustrate the steps needed to produce reliable correlative modelling for arthropod vectors, when process-driven models are unavailable. We use ticks as examples because of the (re)emerging interest in the pathogens they transmit. We argue that many scientific publicati...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
| _version_ | 1797073269906472960 |
|---|---|
| author | Estrada-Peña, A Alexander, N Wint, G |
| author_facet | Estrada-Peña, A Alexander, N Wint, G |
| author_sort | Estrada-Peña, A |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Background This paper aims to illustrate the steps needed to produce reliable correlative modelling for arthropod vectors, when process-driven models are unavailable. We use ticks as examples because of the (re)emerging interest in the pathogens they transmit. We argue that many scientific publications on the topic focus on: (i) the use of explanatory variables that do not adequately describe tick habitats; (ii) the automatic removal of variables causing internal (statistical) problems in the models without considering their ecological significance; and (iii) spatial pattern matching rather than niche mapping, therefore losing information that could be used in projections. Methods We focus on extracting information derived from modelling the environmental niche of ticks, as opposed to pattern matching exercises, as a first step in the process of identifying the ecological determinants of tick distributions. We perform models on widely reported species of ticks in Western Palaearctic to derive a set of covariates, describing the climate niche, reconstructing a Fourier transformation of remotely-sensed information. Results We demonstrate the importance of assembling ecological information that drives the distribution of ticks before undertaking any mapping exercise, from which this kind of information is lost. We also show how customised covariates are more relevant to tick ecology than the widely used set of “Bioclimatic Indicators” (“Biovars”) derived from interpolated datasets, and provide programming scripts to easily calculate them. We demonstrate that standard pre-tailored vegetation categories also fail to describe tick habitats and are best used to describe absence rather than presence of ticks, but could be used in conjunction with the climate based suitability models. Conclusions We stress the better performance of climatic covariates obtained from remotely sensed information as opposed to interpolated explanatory variables derived from ground measurements which are flawed with internal issues affecting modelling performance. Extracting ecological conclusions from modelling projections is necessary to gain information about the variables driving the distribution of arthropod vectors. Mapping exercises should be a secondary aim in the study of the distribution of health threatening arthropods. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:19:38Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:684d082d-d5c1-4af8-af81-8d56a17a4518 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:19:38Z |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | BioMed Central |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:684d082d-d5c1-4af8-af81-8d56a17a45182022-03-26T18:44:00ZPerspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good?Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:684d082d-d5c1-4af8-af81-8d56a17a4518Symplectic Elements at OxfordBioMed Central2016Estrada-Peña, AAlexander, NWint, GBackground This paper aims to illustrate the steps needed to produce reliable correlative modelling for arthropod vectors, when process-driven models are unavailable. We use ticks as examples because of the (re)emerging interest in the pathogens they transmit. We argue that many scientific publications on the topic focus on: (i) the use of explanatory variables that do not adequately describe tick habitats; (ii) the automatic removal of variables causing internal (statistical) problems in the models without considering their ecological significance; and (iii) spatial pattern matching rather than niche mapping, therefore losing information that could be used in projections. Methods We focus on extracting information derived from modelling the environmental niche of ticks, as opposed to pattern matching exercises, as a first step in the process of identifying the ecological determinants of tick distributions. We perform models on widely reported species of ticks in Western Palaearctic to derive a set of covariates, describing the climate niche, reconstructing a Fourier transformation of remotely-sensed information. Results We demonstrate the importance of assembling ecological information that drives the distribution of ticks before undertaking any mapping exercise, from which this kind of information is lost. We also show how customised covariates are more relevant to tick ecology than the widely used set of “Bioclimatic Indicators” (“Biovars”) derived from interpolated datasets, and provide programming scripts to easily calculate them. We demonstrate that standard pre-tailored vegetation categories also fail to describe tick habitats and are best used to describe absence rather than presence of ticks, but could be used in conjunction with the climate based suitability models. Conclusions We stress the better performance of climatic covariates obtained from remotely sensed information as opposed to interpolated explanatory variables derived from ground measurements which are flawed with internal issues affecting modelling performance. Extracting ecological conclusions from modelling projections is necessary to gain information about the variables driving the distribution of arthropod vectors. Mapping exercises should be a secondary aim in the study of the distribution of health threatening arthropods. |
| spellingShingle | Estrada-Peña, A Alexander, N Wint, G Perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good? |
| title | Perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good? |
| title_full | Perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good? |
| title_fullStr | Perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good? |
| title_short | Perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas: so far so good? |
| title_sort | perspectives on modelling the distribution of ticks for large areas so far so good |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT estradapenaa perspectivesonmodellingthedistributionofticksforlargeareassofarsogood AT alexandern perspectivesonmodellingthedistributionofticksforlargeareassofarsogood AT wintg perspectivesonmodellingthedistributionofticksforlargeareassofarsogood |