计算丢失的蜱虫:在蜱虫生态学研究中使用(或不使用)分层模型

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases Pub Date : 2024-04-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2024.102342
Alexej P.K. Sirén , Juliana Berube , Laurence A. Clarfeld , Cheryl F. Sullivan , Benjamin Simpson , Tammy L. Wilson
{"title":"计算丢失的蜱虫:在蜱虫生态学研究中使用(或不使用)分层模型","authors":"Alexej P.K. Sirén ,&nbsp;Juliana Berube ,&nbsp;Laurence A. Clarfeld ,&nbsp;Cheryl F. Sullivan ,&nbsp;Benjamin Simpson ,&nbsp;Tammy L. Wilson","doi":"10.1016/j.ttbdis.2024.102342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Ixodid (hard) ticks play important ecosystem roles and have significant impacts on animal and human health via tick-borne diseases and physiological stress from parasitism. Tick occurrence, abundance, activity, and key life-history traits are highly influenced by host availability, weather, microclimate, and landscape features. As such, changes in the environment can have profound impacts on ticks, their hosts, and the spread of diseases. Researchers recognize that spatial and temporal factors influence activity and abundance and attempt to account for both by conducting replicate sampling bouts spread over the tick questing period. However, common field methods notoriously underestimate abundance, and it is unclear how (or if) tick studies model the confounding effects of factors influencing activity and abundance. This step is critical as unaccounted variance in detection can lead to biased estimates of occurrence and abundance. We performed a descriptive review to evaluate the extent to which studies account for the detection process while modeling tick data. We also categorized the types of analyses that are commonly used to model tick data. We used hierarchical models (HMs) that account for imperfect detection to analyze simulated and empirical tick data, demonstrating that inference is muddled when detection probability is not accounted for in the modeling process. Our review indicates that only 5 of 412 (1 %) papers explicitly accounted for imperfect detection while modeling ticks. By comparing HMs with the most common approaches used for modeling tick data (e.g., ANOVA), we show that population estimates are biased low for simulated and empirical data when using non-HMs, and that confounding occurs due to not explicitly modeling factors that influenced both detection and abundance. Our review and analysis of simulated and empirical data shows that it is important to account for our ability to detect ticks using field methods with imperfect detection. Not doing so leads to biased estimates of occurrence and abundance which could complicate our understanding of parasite-host relationships and the spread of tick-borne diseases. We highlight the resources available for learning HM approaches and applying them to analyzing tick data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49320,"journal":{"name":"Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases","volume":"15 4","pages":"Article 102342"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877959X24000359/pdfft?md5=55397b0caa999060ef39a5d79626195b&pid=1-s2.0-S1877959X24000359-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accounting for missing ticks: Use (or lack thereof) of hierarchical models in tick ecology studies\",\"authors\":\"Alexej P.K. Sirén ,&nbsp;Juliana Berube ,&nbsp;Laurence A. Clarfeld ,&nbsp;Cheryl F. Sullivan ,&nbsp;Benjamin Simpson ,&nbsp;Tammy L. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ttbdis.2024.102342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Ixodid (hard) ticks play important ecosystem roles and have significant impacts on animal and human health via tick-borne diseases and physiological stress from parasitism. Tick occurrence, abundance, activity, and key life-history traits are highly influenced by host availability, weather, microclimate, and landscape features. As such, changes in the environment can have profound impacts on ticks, their hosts, and the spread of diseases. Researchers recognize that spatial and temporal factors influence activity and abundance and attempt to account for both by conducting replicate sampling bouts spread over the tick questing period. However, common field methods notoriously underestimate abundance, and it is unclear how (or if) tick studies model the confounding effects of factors influencing activity and abundance. This step is critical as unaccounted variance in detection can lead to biased estimates of occurrence and abundance. We performed a descriptive review to evaluate the extent to which studies account for the detection process while modeling tick data. We also categorized the types of analyses that are commonly used to model tick data. We used hierarchical models (HMs) that account for imperfect detection to analyze simulated and empirical tick data, demonstrating that inference is muddled when detection probability is not accounted for in the modeling process. Our review indicates that only 5 of 412 (1 %) papers explicitly accounted for imperfect detection while modeling ticks. By comparing HMs with the most common approaches used for modeling tick data (e.g., ANOVA), we show that population estimates are biased low for simulated and empirical data when using non-HMs, and that confounding occurs due to not explicitly modeling factors that influenced both detection and abundance. Our review and analysis of simulated and empirical data shows that it is important to account for our ability to detect ticks using field methods with imperfect detection. Not doing so leads to biased estimates of occurrence and abundance which could complicate our understanding of parasite-host relationships and the spread of tick-borne diseases. We highlight the resources available for learning HM approaches and applying them to analyzing tick data.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 102342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877959X24000359/pdfft?md5=55397b0caa999060ef39a5d79626195b&pid=1-s2.0-S1877959X24000359-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877959X24000359\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877959X24000359","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Ixodid (硬)蜱在生态系统中发挥着重要作用,并通过蜱传疾病和寄生造成的生理压力对动物和人类健康产生重大影响。蜱虫的发生、数量、活动和主要生活史特征受宿主可用性、天气、小气候和地貌特征的影响很大。因此,环境的变化会对蜱虫及其宿主和疾病的传播产生深远的影响。研究人员认识到空间和时间因素会影响蜱虫的活动和数量,并试图通过在蜱虫觅食期间进行重复采样来考虑这两个因素。然而,常见的野外取样方法往往会低估蜱虫的数量,而且目前还不清楚蜱虫研究如何(或是否)模拟影响蜱虫活动和数量的因素的混杂效应。这一步至关重要,因为未计算的检测差异会导致对发生率和丰度的估计出现偏差。我们进行了一项描述性综述,以评估各项研究在建立蜱数据模型时对检测过程的考虑程度。我们还对蜱虫数据建模常用的分析类型进行了分类。我们使用考虑了不完全检测的分层模型(HMs)来分析模拟和实证蜱虫数据,结果表明,如果在建模过程中不考虑检测概率,推论就会变得模糊不清。我们的研究表明,412 篇论文中只有 5 篇(1%)在建立蜱模型时明确考虑了不完全检测。通过将 HMs 与蜱数据建模最常用的方法(如方差分析)进行比较,我们发现在使用非 HMs 时,模拟数据和经验数据的种群估计值偏低,而且由于没有明确模拟影响检测和丰度的因素,混淆现象时有发生。我们对模拟数据和经验数据的回顾和分析表明,在使用不完全检测的野外方法时,必须考虑到我们检测蜱虫的能力。不这样做会导致对发生率和丰度的估计出现偏差,从而使我们对寄生虫-宿主关系和蜱媒疾病传播的理解复杂化。我们重点介绍了学习 HM 方法并将其应用于分析蜱数据的可用资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accounting for missing ticks: Use (or lack thereof) of hierarchical models in tick ecology studies

Ixodid (hard) ticks play important ecosystem roles and have significant impacts on animal and human health via tick-borne diseases and physiological stress from parasitism. Tick occurrence, abundance, activity, and key life-history traits are highly influenced by host availability, weather, microclimate, and landscape features. As such, changes in the environment can have profound impacts on ticks, their hosts, and the spread of diseases. Researchers recognize that spatial and temporal factors influence activity and abundance and attempt to account for both by conducting replicate sampling bouts spread over the tick questing period. However, common field methods notoriously underestimate abundance, and it is unclear how (or if) tick studies model the confounding effects of factors influencing activity and abundance. This step is critical as unaccounted variance in detection can lead to biased estimates of occurrence and abundance. We performed a descriptive review to evaluate the extent to which studies account for the detection process while modeling tick data. We also categorized the types of analyses that are commonly used to model tick data. We used hierarchical models (HMs) that account for imperfect detection to analyze simulated and empirical tick data, demonstrating that inference is muddled when detection probability is not accounted for in the modeling process. Our review indicates that only 5 of 412 (1 %) papers explicitly accounted for imperfect detection while modeling ticks. By comparing HMs with the most common approaches used for modeling tick data (e.g., ANOVA), we show that population estimates are biased low for simulated and empirical data when using non-HMs, and that confounding occurs due to not explicitly modeling factors that influenced both detection and abundance. Our review and analysis of simulated and empirical data shows that it is important to account for our ability to detect ticks using field methods with imperfect detection. Not doing so leads to biased estimates of occurrence and abundance which could complicate our understanding of parasite-host relationships and the spread of tick-borne diseases. We highlight the resources available for learning HM approaches and applying them to analyzing tick data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases
Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases INFECTIOUS DISEASES-MICROBIOLOGY
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
185
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It publishes original research papers, short communications, state-of-the-art mini-reviews, letters to the editor, clinical-case studies, announcements of pertinent international meetings, and editorials. The journal covers a broad spectrum and brings together various disciplines, for example, zoology, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, mathematical modelling, veterinary and human medicine. Multidisciplinary approaches and the use of conventional and novel methods/methodologies (in the field and in the laboratory) are crucial for deeper understanding of the natural processes and human behaviour/activities that result in human or animal diseases and in economic effects of ticks and tick-borne pathogens. Such understanding is essential for management of tick populations and tick-borne diseases in an effective and environmentally acceptable manner.
期刊最新文献
Genome sequence of Ehrlichia muris from Ixodes ricinus collected in Italy on a migratory bird provides epidemiological and evolutionary insights Clinical manifestations and outcomes of Tick-borne encephalitis: A systematic literature review Natural Panola Mountain Ehrlichia infections in cattle in a longitudinal study of Angus beef calves Microbial genetic variation impacts host eco-immunological strategies and microparasite fitness in Lyme borreliae-reptile system Detection of Anaplasma bovis-like agent in the Southcentral United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1