Advertisement

Understanding the Relationships between Landscape Connectivity and Abundance of Ixodes ricinus Ticks

  • Agustín Estrada-Peña
Article

Abstract

The density of Ixodes ricinus ticks in a heterogeneous landscape of northern Spain was determined and associated with some aspects of habitat topology. The habitat mosaic was used to quantify connectivity between patches of different tick density. The analysis revealed that patches with high tick abundance are ‘stepping-stone’ territories that, when removed from the landscape, cause large changes in connectivity. Sites with medium tick abundance do not cause such a critical transition in connectivity. Patches with low tick abundance, but optimal abiotic conditions for survival are located within the minimum cost corridors network joining the patches, while those sites where the tick has been intermittently collected are located at variable distances from this network. These results suggest that tick distribution in a zone is highly affected not only by abiotic variables (vegetation and weather) but also by host movements. Whether these high-density ‘stepping-stone’ patches occur in other tick species needs to be evaluated because of the potential implications of these foci for human health.

Ixodes ricinus ticks Spain patch habitat network connectivity 

References

  1. Daniel, M. and Dusbábek, F. 1994. Micrometeorological and microhabitat factors affecting maintenance and dissemination of tick-borne diseases in the environment. In: 'Ecological Dynamics of Tick-borne Zoonoses', D.E. Sonenshine and T.N. Mather (eds), pp. 91-138. Oxford, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Estrada-Peña, A. 1999. Geostatistics as predictive tools to estimate Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae) habitat suitability in the western Palearctic from AVHRR satellite imagery. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 22: 337-349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Estrada-Peña, A. 2001. Distribution, abundance, and habitat preferences of Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae) in Northern Spain. J. Med. Entomol. 38: 361-370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gray, J.S., Kahl, O., Robertson, J., Daniel, M., Estrada-Peña, A., Gettinby, G., Jaenson, T.G.T., Jensen, P. and Jongejan, F. 1998. Lyme borreliosis habitat assessment. Zentbl. Bakteriol. 287: 211-228.Google Scholar
  5. Hames, R.S., Rosenberg, A., Lowe, J. and Dhondt, A. 2001. Site reoccupation in fragmented landscapes: testing predictions of metapopulation theory. J. Anim. Ecol. 70: 182-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hanski, I. 1994. Patch-occupancy dynamics in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 131-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keitt, T.H., Urban, D.L. and Milne, B.T. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Ecol. (online) 1: 4. URL: <http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4>.Google Scholar
  8. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241: 1455-1460.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Olivieri, I., Couvet, D. and Gouyon, P.-H. 1995. Metapopulation genetics and the evolution of dispersal. Am. Nat. 146: 202-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Patton, D.R. 1975. A diversity index for quantifying habitat "edge". Wild. Soc. Bull. 3: 171-173.Google Scholar
  11. Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population size for species conservation. Bioscience 31: 131-134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stauffer, D. and Aharony, A. 1985. Introduction to Percolation Theory. Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar
  13. Verboom, J., Foppen, R., Chardon, P., Opdam, P. and Luttikhuizen, P. 2001. Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biol. Conserv. 100: 89-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Witt, K.A. 1994. Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure. Landscape Ecol. 9: 25-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agustín Estrada-Peña
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Parasitology, Veterinary FacultyUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations