Vectors, hosts, and control measures for Zika virus in the Americas

Sarah J. Thompson; John M. Pearce; Andrew M. Ramey

doi:10.1007/s10393-017-1277-2

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70196267

Vectors, hosts, and control measures for Zika virus in the Americas

Sarah J. Thompson·John M. Pearce·Andrew M. Ramey

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We examine Zika virus (ZIKV) from an ecological perspective and with a focus on the Americas. We assess (1) the role of wildlife in ZIKV disease ecology, (2) how mosquito behavior and biology influence disease dynamics, and (3) how nontarget species and ecosystems may be impacted by vector control programs. Our review suggests that free-ranging, non-human primates may be involved in ZIKV transmission in the Old World; however, other wildlife species likely play a limited role in maintaining or transmitting ZIKV. In the Americas, a zoonotic cycle has not yet been definitively established. Understanding behaviors and habitat tolerances of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus , two ZIKV competent vectors in the Americas, will allow more accurate modeling of disease spread and facilitate targeted and effective control efforts. Vector control efforts may have direct and indirect impacts to wildlife, particularly invertebrate feeding species; however, strategies could be implemented to limit detrimental ecological effects.

Explore related subjects

EcoHealth Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Sarah J. Thompson, John M. Pearce, Andrew M. Ramey. 2017-11-17. Vectors, hosts, and control measures for Zika virus in the Americas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-017-1277-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2022

Potential effects of environmental conditions on prairie dog flea development and implications for sylvatic plague epizootics

Fleas are common ectoparasites of vertebrates worldwide and vectors of many pathogens causing disease, such as sylvatic plague in prairie dog colonies. Development of fleas is regulated by environmental conditions, especially temperature and relative humidity. Development rates are typically slower at low temperatures and faster at high temperatures, which are bounded by lower and upper thresholds where development is reduced. Prairie dogs and their associated fleas (mostly Oropsylla spp) live in burrows that moderate outside environmental conditions, remaining cooler in summer and warmer in winter. We found burrow microclimates were characterized by stable daily temperatures and high relative humidity, with temperatures increasing from spring through summer. We previously showed temperature increases corresponded with increasing off-host flea abundance. To evaluate how changes in temperature could affect future prairie dog flea development and abundance, we used development rates of O. montana (a species related to prairie dog fleas), determined how prairie dog burrow microclimates are affected by ambient weather, and combined these results to develop a predictive model. Our model predicts burrow temperatures and flea development rates will increase during the twenty-first century, potentially leading to higher flea abundance and an increased probability of plague epizootics if Y. pestis is present.

Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South↗

USGS2022

Future directions to manage wildlife health in a changing climate

In September 2019 The Economist wrote an obituary to Okjökull, a glacier in western Iceland that was declared “dead” in 2014, a victim of climate change. Although a few wildlife species have already incurred such a fate (e.g., the Bramble Cay melomys [ Melomys rubicola ]) (Fulton 2017), many more are on the path to climate-driven extinction (Andermann et al. 2020; Ceballos et al. 2015; He et al. 2019; Roman-Palacios and Wiens 2020; Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019; WWF 2020).

EcoHealth↗

USGS2019

Response to “Prepublication communication of research results”: The need for a coordinated wildlife disease surveillance laboratory network

In “Prepublication Communication of Research Results”, Adams et al. ( 2018 ) outline the importance of timeliness in providing scientific results with consequential implications for wildlife management to responsible government agencies. The authors discuss various impediments to sharing of scientific results and provide well-reasoned arguments why scientists should not fear that sharing these results with wildlife management agencies will preclude their ability to subsequently publish this information in the peer-reviewed literature.

EcoHealth↗