Urbanization predicts infection risk by a protozoan parasite in non-migratory populations of monarch butterflies from the southern coastal U.S. and Hawaii
- 13 Downloads
Urbanization can affect the density of hosts, altering patterns of infection risk in wildlife. Most studies examining associations between urbanization and host-parasite interactions have focused on vertebrate wildlife that carry zoonotic pathogens, and less is known about responses of other host taxa, including insects.
Here we ask whether urban development predicts infection by a protozoan, Ophyrocystis elektroscirrha, in three populations of monarchs (Danaus plexippus): migratory monarchs in northeastern U.S., non-migratory monarchs in southeastern coastal U.S., and non-migratory monarchs in Hawaii.
We used impervious surface and developed land cover classes from the National Land Cover Database to derive proportional measures of urban development and an index of land cover aggregation at two spatial scales. Parasite data were from previous field sampling (Hawaii) and a citizen science project focused on monarch infection in North America.
Proportional measures of urban development predicted greater infection prevalence for non-migratory monarchs sampled in the southern coastal U.S. and Hawaii, but not in the northern U.S. Aggregations of low intensity development, dominated by single-family housing, predicted greater infection prevalence in monarchs from the northern and southern coastal U.S. populations, but predicted lower infection prevalence in Hawaii.
Because natural habitats have been reduced by land-use change, plantings for monarchs in residential areas and urban gardens has become popular among the public. Mechanisms that underlie higher infection prevalence in urban landscapes remain unknown. Further monitoring and experimental studies are needed to inform strategies for habitat management to lower infection risk for monarchs.
KeywordsDanaus plexippus Ophryocystis elektroscirrha Host–parasite interaction Gardens Tropical milkweed Pollinator
We thank Alexa McKay, Andy Davis, Leone Brown, Paola Barriga, Daniel Becker, Cecilia Sanchez, Rachel Smith, Carly Phillips, Anya Brown, David Stallknecht and members of the Yabsley, Altizer and Ezenwa labs for comments and discussion of manuscript drafts. We are also grateful to John Drake and Seth Wenger for discussion of statistical approaches. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
- Ackery PR, Vane-Wright RI (1984) Milkweed butterflies, their cladistics and biology: being an account of the natural history of the Danainae, a subfamily of the Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae. Dept. of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London, UKGoogle Scholar
- Baldock KC, Goddard MA, Hicks DM, Kunin WE, Mitschunas N, Osgathorpe LM, Potts SG, Robertson KM, Scott AV, Stone GN, Vaughan IP, Memmott J (2015) Where is the UK’s pollinator biodiversity? The importance of urban areas for flower-visiting insects. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 282:20142849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Batalden RV, Oberhauser KS (2015) Potential changes in eastern North American monarch migration in response to an introduced milkweed, Asclepias curassavica. In: Oberhauser K, Nail K, Altizer S (eds) Monarchs in a changing world: biology and conservation of an iconic butterfly. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 215–224Google Scholar
- Burnham KP, Anderson D (2003) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- ESRI (2011) ArcGIS, Release 10 Environmental Systems Research Institute Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
- Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Coan M, Hossain N, Larson C, Herold N, McKerrow A, Van Driel J, Wickham J (2007) Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the counterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 73:337–341Google Scholar
- Homer C, Dewitz J, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 81:345–354Google Scholar
- Howard E, Aschen H, Davis AK (2010) Citizen science observations of monarch butterfly overwintering in the southern United States. Psyche J Entom 2010:6Google Scholar
- McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
- McLaughlin R, Myers J (1970) Ophryocystis elektroscirrha sp. n., a neogregarine pathogen of the monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus (L.) and the Florida queen butterfly D. gilippus berenice Cramer. J Eukaryot Microbiol 17:300–305Google Scholar
- Motooka P, Castro L, Nelson D, Nagai G, Ching L (2003) Weeds of Hawaii’s pastures and natural areas: an identification and management guide. University of Hawaii Press, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
- Oberhauser KS, Cotter D, Davis D, Decarie R, Behnumea AE, Galino-Leal C, Gallina Tessaro MP, Howard E, Lauriault J, Maczieski W, Malcolm S (2008) North American monarch conservation plan. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, MontrealGoogle Scholar
- R package lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4, v. 1.1-15 (2017)Google Scholar
- R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2018) Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- Taylor OR (2018) Monarch Watch https://www.monarchwatch.org/waystations/. Accessed 11 Dec 2018
- Thogmartin WE, Wiederholt R, Oberhauser K, Drum RG, Diffendorfer JE, Altizer S, Taylor OR, Pleasants J, Semmens D, Semmens B, Erickson R, Libby K, Lopez-Hoffman L (2017) Monarch butterfly population decline in North America: identifying the threatening processes. R Soc Open Sci 4:170760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Xian GZ, Homer CG, Dewitz J, Fry J, Hossain N, Wickham J (2011) Change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 77:758–762Google Scholar