Spatial configuration becomes more important with increasing habitat loss: a simulation study of environmentally-transmitted parasites
Landscape changes can be an important modifier of disease. Habitat fragmentation commonly results in reduced connectivity in host populations and increased use of the remaining habitat. For environmentally transmitted parasites, this presents a possible trade-off between transmission potential at the local and global level.
We quantify the effects of fragmentation on the transmission of an environmentally transmitted parasite, teasing apart the relative effects of habitat composition and configuration on both host movement behaviour and subsequent infection patterns.
We use a spatially-explicit epidemiological model to simulate the effects of habitat fragmentation, using, as an example, whipworm (Trichuris sp.) within a red colobus monkey population (Procolobus rufomitratus).
We found that habitat fragmentation did not always lead to a trade-off between population connectivity and concentration of habitat use in host movement behaviour or in final population infection patterns. However, our simulation results suggest the spatial configuration of the remaining habitat became increasingly influential on behavioural and infection outcomes as habitat was removed. Additionally, we found common fragmentation metrics provided little ability to explain variation in propagation of infections.
Our results suggest an interaction between habitat configuration and composition should be considered when assessing disease related impacts of habitat fragmentation on environmentally transmitted parasites, especially in cases where habitat loss is high (≥ 30%). We also propose that spatially-explicit simulations that capture a host’s response to fragmentation could aid in the development of novel landscape metrics targeted towards specific host-parasite-landscape systems.
KeywordsHabitat fragmentation Infectious disease Spatially-explicit epidemiological model Red colobus Kibale National Park Landscape connectivity Host movement
We gratefully acknowledge the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology and the Uganda Wildlife Authority for permission to conduct this research, as well as two anonymous reviewers who gave helpful comments on this manuscript. Funding for the research was provided by the Canada Research Chairs Program, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Kyoto University, Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies, National Geographic and by NIH grant TW009237 as part of the joint NIH-NSF Ecology of Infectious Disease program and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. TRB was supported by an FQRNT Fellowship.
- Chapman CA, Ghai RR, Reyna-Hurtado R, Jacob AL, Koojo SM, Rothman JM, Twinomugisha D, Wasserman MD, Goldberg TL (2013) Going, going, gone: a 15-year history of the decline in abundance of primates in forest fragments. In: Marsh LK, Chapman CA (eds) Primates in fragments: complexity and resilience. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Goldberg TL, Paige SB, Chapman CA (2012) The Kibale eco health project. In: Aguirre AA, Ostfeld RS, Daszak P (eds) New direcitons in conservation medicine. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Keeling MJ, Rohani P (2008) Modeling infectious diseases in humans and animals. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- McCallum H, Dobson A (2002) Disease, habitat fragmentation and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 269:2041–2049Google Scholar
- McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. University of Massachusetts, BostonGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Wilson MC, Chen X-Y, Corlett RT, Didham RK, Ding P, Holt RD, Holyoak M, Hu G, Hughes AC, Jiang L, Laurance WF, Liu J, Pimm SL, Robinson SK, Russo SE, Si X, Wilcove DS, Wu J, Yu M (2016) Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landscape Ecol 31:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar