Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0227679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227679

Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

Dragutin T Mihailović 1, Dušan Petrić 2,*, Tamaš Petrović 3, Ivana Hrnjaković-Cvjetković 4,5, Vladimir Djurdjevic 6, Emilija Nikolić-Đorić 7, Ilija Arsenić 1, Mina Petrić 8,9,10,*, Gordan Mimić 11, Aleksandra Ignjatović-Ćupina 2
Editor: Abdallah M Samy12
PMCID: PMC6961917  PMID: 31940403

Abstract

Motivated by the One Health paradigm, we found the expected changes in temperature and UV radiation (UVR) to be a common trigger for enhancing the risk that viruses, vectors, and diseases pose to human and animal health. We compared data from the mosquito field collections and medical studies with regional climate model projections to examine the impact of climate change on the spreading of one malaria vector, the circulation of West Nile virus (WNV), and the incidence of melanoma. We analysed data obtained from ten selected years of standardised mosquito vector sampling with 219 unique location-year combinations, and 10 years of melanoma incidence. Trends in the observed data were compared to the climatic variables obtained by the coupled regional Eta Belgrade University and Princeton Ocean Model for the period 1961–2015 using the A1B scenario, and the expected changes up to 2030 were presented. Spreading and relative abundance of Anopheles hyrcanus was positively correlated with the trend of the mean annual temperature. We anticipated a nearly twofold increase in the number of invaded sites up to 2030. The frequency of WNV detections in Culex pipiens was significantly correlated to overwintering temperature averages and seasonal relative humidity at the sampling sites. Regression model projects a twofold increase in the incidence of WNV positive Cx. pipiens for a rise of 0.5°C in overwintering TOctober–April temperatures. The projected increase of 56% in the number of days with Tmax ≥ 30°C (Hot Days—HD) and UVR doses (up to 1.2%) corresponds to an increasing trend in melanoma incidence. Simulations of the Pannonian countries climate anticipate warmer and drier conditions with possible dominance of temperature and number of HD over other ecological factors. These signal the importance of monitoring the changes to the preparedness of mitigating the risk of vector-borne diseases and melanoma.

Introduction

Climate change is referred to as “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century” [1].The analysis of outputs from all general circulation models (GCM) suggests that the countries of the Pannonian Plain, including Serbia, are facing significant impacts of climate change, affecting all aspects of human life [2]. The authors of the manuscript (meteorology, entomology, veterinary medicine, and public health experts), have been working together since 2003, promoting the idea of multisectoral collaboration before the One Health Concept was officially inaugurated in the USA in 2007 [3], and endorsed by the European Union (EU) [4] as well as prominent organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in 2018 [5].

In this paper, the authors collected and analysed observed data over 31 years and related a subset to outputs from a Regional Climate Model (RCM). Vector-borne diseases and melanoma are significant climate-driven threats for which risk sources can be clearly defined [6]. Moreover, both present progressively growing environmental threats to the animal as well as human health in the countries of the Pannonian Plane [7,8,9].

The biology and distribution of mosquito vectors and their capacity to transmit mosquito-borne diseases are dependent on many factors such as global trade and travel, urbanisation, habitat destruction, pesticide application, host density, and climate. Anopheles hyrcanus and Culex pipiens are mosquito species that are vectors of malaria and West Nile virus (WNV) disease, respectively, the two vector-borne diseases distributed worldwide [10,11]. Malaria was eradicated from Serbia and other Balkan states during the last century. However, the spreading of its vectors (Anopheles mosquitoes) and the re-emergence of the disease in Greece [12] pose a threat to the South East and Central Europe once again. In 2018, Serbia was the second European country (after Italy) most affected by WNV disease (415 reported cases with 35 fatal outcomes). In Europe, the total number of reported human autochthonous WNV infections in 2018 (n = 2,083) exceeded, by far, the total number from the previous seven years (n = 1,832). During the same transmission season, outbreaks of West Nile fever among equids increased by 30% compared to the number of outbreaks in 2017. In total, 285 outbreaks among equids were reported by the EU Member States in 2018 [13]. Current evidence suggests that inter-annual and inter-decadal climate variability have a direct influence on the epidemiology of vector-borne diseases, with temperature and relative humidity as the principal abiotic factors influencing the life-cycles of the mosquito vector, the pathogen, the host and the interactions between them [14,15].

Melanoma is a malignant disease that has experienced a significant increase in incidence during the last few decades all over the world [16]. Climate change impact on melanoma should be considered as a synergy of changes in UV radiation (UVR) due to stratospheric ozone depletion and the long-term increase of air temperature leading to more prolonged exposure of individuals to UVR doses and consequently to a higher risk of melanoma [17]. Melanoma mortality in the Vojvodina Province (northern Serbia) (VPS) within the period 1985–2004 shows an evident increase, placing it amongst the most vulnerable regions in the world. Thus, Jovanović et al. [7] estimated and made the list of mortality rates from malignant melanoma for males (age-standardised rate/100,000) in Europe (39 countries) for the year 2000, using European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) data. This list shows that the VPS is among the top eleven states (six of them have parts in the Pannonian Plane) listed as the most endangered.

In this study, devoted to revealing the potential impact of climate change on animal and human health, we compared a considerable amount of previously unpublished ecological data obtained from the field and clinical surveys with climate change projections for the VPS, which is representative of the Central European low-altitude areas with a human-dominated landscape (Fig 1). We examined the effects of temperature on the spread and relative abundance of the malaria vector An. hyrcanus and the “microclimate” differentiation between sites with a specific frequency of WNV occurrence in Cx. pipiens. We also evaluated the impact of climate change on melanoma incidence as a synergy of changes in UVR doses and the long-term increase in the number of hot days (HD), with daily maximum temperature ≥ 30°C using the Eta Belgrade University and Princeton Ocean Model (EBU-POM) regional model data.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

(a) Location of the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) in Europe and (b) altitude map. (Made with Natural Earth—naturalearthdata.com).

Materials and methods

For the assessment of the climate change and the impact of UVR doses, we used the climatic variables obtained by the coupled regional EBU-POM model for the historical period 1961–2000 and the period 2001–2030 according to the A1B scenario defined in Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) [18], from now on SRES-A1B. SRES scenarios, which defined future global greenhouse gases emissions, were extensively used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third, and Fourth Assessment Reports. The main storyline behind the A1B scenario is rapid economic growth, followed by a significant increase in greenhouse gases concentrations in the future. In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are introduced, which are possible future concentration pathways without any storyline behind them [19]. Comparing SRES-A1B and RCPs in terms of the greenhouse gases concentrations, at the end of this century SRES-A1B is the closest to RCP6.0, but for the time horizon used in this study, up to 2030, the difference between any SRES or RCPs are relatively small.

Study area and climate

The VPS is situated in the northern part of Serbia and the southern part of the Pannonian lowland (18°51′–21°33′E, 44°37′–46°11′N and 75–641 m.a.s.l. (with the Fruška Gora Mountain in the south) as it is seen in Fig 1A and 1B). This region is the essential food production area in Serbia with a total surface area of 21,500 km2 and a population of about 2 million. This region has a continental climate, with elements of a sub-humid and warm climate (Cfwbx” according to Köppen classification [20]).

Models and formula used

The global and regional climate model

For climate simulations in this study, we used results of the EBU-POM model runs for the SRES-A1B scenario integrated over the period 2001–2030 [21]. The EBU-POM is a two-way, coupled RCM. The atmospheric part is the Eta/National Centres for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) limited area model (resolution 0.25° × 0.25° on 32 vertical levels; centred at 41.5° N, 15° E, with boundaries at ±19.9° W–E and ±13.0° S–N), while the oceanic part is the POM (resolution 0.20° × 0.20° on 21 vertical levels). The driving global circulation model (GCM) was the ECHAM5 model [22] coupled with the Max Planck Institute Ocean Model (MPI-OM) [23]. More details about model integrations and performed bias correction for VPS can be found in the paper by Mihailović et al. [2]. The POM model was set over the Mediterranean Sea without the Black Sea; for other open seas, the sea surface temperature from the GCM was used as a bottom boundary condition.

Environmental sampling

Mosquito vectors

We used standardised protocols to measure mosquito presence/absence, density, and infestation by WNV. Data were extracted from dry ice-baited trap samples, collected over 31 years at 166 different sites (745 sampled locations, S1 Table) in the VPS, to infer on the trends of local vector status and virus circulation in mosquitoes. In all years, mosquitoes were sampled from May to September, with different spatial intensity and time-frequency governed by the scale and scope of different research projects. For comparison with climate variables, we extracted data obtained in 10 years (1985–6, 2004–5 and 2010–5) for which a standardised surveillance protocol was in place. These periods have the highest number of particular location-year combinations (S1S3 Tables).

Samples were collected by two different types of dry-ice baited suction traps. During 1985 and 1986 [24,25] by the miniature CDC light trap (CDC) and for 2004 and 2015 by the NS2 trap (our design of dry ice-baited suction trap without light). Both traps were operating without a light source (incandescent light proved not to be attractive/repellent for most mosquito species inhabiting the VPS [25]). The CDC trap has 3–5 times stronger suction power (operated by a 9V battery) than NS2 (operated by 3 x 1.2V batteries), meaning that the increase in density of species observed after 1986 could not be attributed to the change of the type of trap. Traps were operated from the afternoon until the morning of the next day (one trap night), with different periodicity. The specific location of the trap at each site was chosen by experienced entomologists to stabilise variation of the collected data.

We used three parameters to indicate An. hyrcanus spread and population growth in the period 1985–2015: i) the ratio of positive to total mosquito samplings per year; ii) the number of sites invaded (positive places where it was looked for, but was not found in the preceding sampling period, and the number of sites where was observed in both periods, i.e. established); and iii) the average number of specimens sampled in one trap during single sampling period from the afternoon of the starting day to the morning of the next day (Fig 2A and 2C). Here, we used data from 1,073 mosquito samples (1985–6, 2004–5 and 2014–5), obtained at 54 location over six years (142 unique location-year combinations) (S2 Table).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

(a) The regional climate model EBU-POM projection of the mean annual air temperature (Ta) for the period 1985–2030 and: i) number of specimens sampled in one trap during single sampling period (blue columns); ii) the number of sites invaded by An. hyrcanus (light blue columns); and iii) relative number of positive samplings per year (dark blue columns), (b) projected increase in the number of sites invaded by An. hyrcanus (the period 2001–2030 ±S.E.), and (c) projected increase in the number of the specimens sampled in one trap during single sampling period (2001–2030 ±S.E.).

For Cx. pipiens, the period starting with the first detection of WNV in mosquitoes in Serbia, in 2010 [26], to 2015 was considered. To investigate the impact of microclimate on the complex interaction between Cx. pipiens and WNV, we used the following climatic parameters from the EBU-POM model outputs (covering the period 2006–2015) for 11 sites (GPS coordinates–S3 Table) in the VPS with different histories of WNV circulation: (i) mean annual temperature (Ta); (ii) overwintering temperature (TOA) for the period October–April; (iii) seasonal temperature (TMS) for the period May–September; and (iv) relative humidity (RMS) for the period May–September. For these sites, we examined the correlation between the frequency of WNV detections in Cx. pipiens at each site (from 2010 to 2015) and the corresponding period averages of climate time series for the same site. For detection of WNV, specimens were sampled, anaesthetised by dry ice, identified to species level [27] on dry ice-cooled paper, pooled according to date, location, sex, and species, transported on dry ice to the laboratory, and stored at -70°C before virus detection. Pool size did not exceed 50 mosquito specimens per pool. Mosquito pools were tested for WNV RNA presence by TaqMan-based one-step reverse transcription real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) that amplified both lineage 1 and 2 strains. Viral RNA was extracted using the commercial ISOLATE II RNA Mini Kit (Bioline, The Netherlands) according to the manufacturer's instruction. One-step RT-qPCR was conducted using the commercial kit RNA UltraSense One-Step qRT-PCR System (Life Technologies Corporation) with the primers and probe that targeted the nucleocapsid protein C gene regions of WNV, as described by Petrović et al. [8]. We analysed the yearly occurrence of the WNV positive Cx. pipiens mosquitoes sampled by dry ice-baited traps in the years 2010–2015 across 66 unique location-year combinations (S3 Table). Only traps positioned precisely at the same spot over the entire six-year period are considered for analysis. Numbers allocated to different places (Fig 3) indicate the number of years in the period 2010–2015 in which WNV was detected in sampled Cx. pipiens mosquitoes; e.g. 5 indicates that WNV positive Cx. pipiens were detected in five out of the six years in the samples collected from the same spot.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

(a) Dependence of frequencies (λ) of WNV positive Culex pipiens detections at the same site on overwintering temperatures (TOA); (b) Frequency of sampling of WNV infected mosquitoes (1–5 times) during six years (bars and numbers) in NUTS3 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) units of the Vojvodina Province, Serbia.

Melanoma incidence

In the analysis we have used two indicators: (i) melanoma incidence rate that is a measure of the number of new cases ("incidence") per unit of time ("rate") and (ii) cumulative incidence (“incidence proportion” that measures the number of new cases per person in the population over a defined period of time–often called risk or proportion). Melanoma incidence rate (per 100,000 people) for ten years 1995–2004 was based on the data obtained from the paper by Jovanović et al. [7]. From these data, we calculated the cumulative incidence [28]. We have used the model simulation to study the expected impact of climate change on UVR exposure of human skin for nine sites in VPS [PA (Palić), SO (Sombor), KI (Kikinda), NS (Novi Sad), BC (Bečej), ZR (Zrenjanin), SM (Sremska Mitrovica), BK (Bantaski Karlovac), and BG (Beograd)]. For calculating the daily doses of UVR (UVRD) in the study area sites, we have used the following empirical formula UVRD = 0.002507×Gd−5.985 (kJ/m2) derived by Malinović-Milićević et al. [29], where Gd is the daily sum of global solar radiation. First, we calculated UVRD from global radiation model outputs using the empirical formula for the nine sites for the period April–September, and then we found the relative change R(UVRD) of those doses as R(UVRD) = (UVRD-UVRDk)/ UVRDk where UVRDk is the dose for 1961–1990 reference period, while the UVRD is calculated for the period 2001–2030.

Statistics

We considered the papers by Mihailović et al. [2,30] in which Kolmogorov complexity measures [Kolmogorov complexity (KC), Kolmogorov complexity spectrum (KC spectrum), and the highest value of the KC spectrum (KCM)], and sample entropy (SE) [31] were used to quantify the regularity and complexity of air temperature and precipitation time series, obtained by the EBU-POM model, representing both deterministic chaos and stochastic processes. We considered the complexity of the EBU-POM model using the observed and modelled time series of temperature and precipitation. We computed the KC spectrum, KC, KCM and SE values for temperature and precipitation. The calculations were performed for the entire time interval 1961–1990: (i) on a daily basis with a size of n = 10,958 samples for temperature and (ii) on a monthly basis with a size n = 360 for the precipitation. The simulated time series of temperature and precipitation were obtained by the EBU-POM model for the given period. The observed time series of temperature and precipitations for two stations: Sombor (SO) (88 m.a.s.l.) and Novi Sad (NS) (84 m.a.s.l.) in the considered area, were taken from daily meteorological reports of the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia. For both sites, the modelled complexity is lower than the observed one, but with the reliability which is in the interval values allowed by the information measures (KC, KCM, and SE) [32,33,34]. The term model reliability we have used in the following context. The Lyapunov exponent (LLE) relates to the predictability of measured time series, which includes deterministic chaos as an inherent component. Model predictability is here understood as the degree to which a correct prediction of a system's state can be made either qualitatively or quantitatively. In a stochastic analysis, a random process is considered predictable if it is possible to infer the next state from previous observations. In many models, however, randomness is a phenomenon which “spoils” predictability [35]. Deterministic chaos does not mechanically denote total predictability but means that at least it improves the prognostic power. In contrast, stochastic trajectories cannot be projected into the future. If LLE>1 then time series is not chaotic, but is rather stochastic, and predictions cannot be based on chaos theory. However, if 0<LLE<1 it indicates the existence of chaos in time series. In that case, one can compute the approximate time [often called Lyapunov time (LT)] limit for which accurate prediction for a chaotic system is a function of LLE. It designates a period when a specific process (physical, mechanical, hydrological, quantum, or even biological) moves beyond the bounds of precise (or probabilistic) predictability and enters a chaotic mode. According to Frison and Abarbanel [36] that time can be calculated as LLE Δtlyap = 1/LLE. If LLE→0, implying that Δtlyap→∞, then long-term accurate predictions are possible. However, many climate time series are highly complex. Therefore, Δtlyap can be corrected for randomness in the following way. Similar to Δtlyap we can introduce a randomness time Δtrand = 1/KC (in time units, second, hour or day). Henceforth, we shall denote this quantity Kolmogorov time (KT), as it quantifies the period beyond which randomness significantly influences predictability. Then, the Lyapunov time corrected for randomness is defined as [0,Δtlyap]∩[0,Δtrand]. It can be stated that the KT designates the size of the time window within time series where complexity remains nearly unchanged. These findings mean that the models with a KC (and KCM) complexity lower than the measured time series complexity cannot always reconstruct some of the structures contained in the observed data. However, it does not mean that outputs from EBU-POM model do not correctly simulate climate elements since both sites’ values indicate the absence of stochastic influences, providing reliable projections of the climate elements [37]. Therefore, the EBU-POM model can be considered as a model having high performances and reliability in projection of temperature and precipitation, two of the most important elements used in different climate research.

For An. hyrcanus, the temperature trend was evaluated by the Mann-Kendall test using the R statistical package [38]. Field observed values on species distribution and density for the period 1985–2015 and forecasts of the numbers of sites invaded and specimens sampled for the period 2016–2030 based on linear trends were obtained by the Eviews 9.5 software [39]. For Cx. pipiens, the relationship between yearly frequency of WNV detection in mosquitoes, air temperature, and relative humidity (derived from the climate model) was estimated using Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation and a Poisson regression model (Statistica 13 [40]). For melanoma, the linear regression model was used for modelling the cumulative incidence of melanoma versus the difference of the cumulative UVR doses for hot and warm days (Fig 4D). Analysis of residual distribution was done by Shapiro-Wilk test (Statistica 13 [40])

Fig 4.

Fig 4

(a) Relative change of hot days (HD) and (b) UVR radiation doses [R (UVRD)] for the period 2001–2030 compared to the period 1961–1990; (c) cumulative values of mean UVR doses for the period 1985–2030 (averaged for nine sites: PA, SO, KI, NS, BC, ZR, SM, BK, and BG) under the SRES-A1B scenario (for WD and HD days); and (d) cumulative incidence of melanoma for the period 1995–2004 in the Vojvodina Province, Serbia.

Results

Mosquito vectors

Fig 2A shows an evident linear trend of the mean annual temperature Ta for the period 1985–2030 (r = 0.467; p = 0.001; τ = 0.328) calculated from the EBU-POM regional model outputs for 29 representative sites in the VPS. All parameters that were chosen for the evaluation of the spread and population increase of An. hyrcanus were positively, but to a different extent, correlated to the time argument (periods in which sampling was performed since the beginning of monitoring in 1985) indicating a monotonic trend. The increase of parameters follows the trend of Ta (Fig 2A). The strongest correlation was found for the increase in the ratio of positive samplings (r = 0.986; p = 0.000307; τ = 0.828), followed by the number of mosquitoes per trap night (r = 0.919; p = 0.009639;τ = 0.733), and the number of sites invaded (r = 0.889; p = 0.01766; τ = 0.6). By 2030 we anticipate a further increase in numbers of invaded sites and adult females sampled, by 1.71 and 1.27 fold, respectively (Fig 2B and 2C).

Spearman rank-order correlation between the frequency of WNV detections in Cx. pipiens at 11 sites and the corresponding mean values of climate time series was the highest for TOA (r = 0.755; p = 0.00008), then for Ta (r = 0.616; p = 0.00294), RMS (r = 0.499; p = 0.02119), and TMS (r = 0.477; p = 0.02856). Fig 3A depicts the Poisson regression model for the dependence of a number of detections per site (frequency - λ) on TOA, which is statistically significant (p = 0.01393). The output of the model (lnλ = −7.923+1.533×TOA) indicates that for an increase of 0.5°C in TOA (presuming that all other factors needed for the circulation of WNV are kept constant), a twofold increase in the incidence of WNV positive Cx. pipiens could be projected. Fig 3B depicts that most of the sites with the high frequency of WNV occurrence (≥2) were distributed along the northwest-southeast axis of the VPS.

Melanoma incidence and UVR doses

Fig 4B shows the positive relative change of UVRD, remarkably covering an eastern, southern, western, and partly central area of VPS. Specifically, the projected increase is twofold going from the west and northwest (0.60%) towards the east and southeast where it reaches values of about 1.20%. The EBU-POM model (for nine sites) shows a significant expected increase of 56% in the number of HD days in the VPS (Fig 4A), compared to the period 1961–1990. Additionally, we observed a decrease of 1.1% in the number of days with maximum air temperature Tmax ≥ 25°C (Warm Days—WD). This prolongs the exposure of outdoor working adults to UVR and thus leads to an increase in melanoma risk. This risk becomes even more significant because of the increase in cumulative values of UVR doses (Fig 4C). Fig 4D depicts the cumulative incidence of melanoma for the period 1985–2004 with an increasing monotonic trend (r = 0.9712 and p = 0.000003).

Discussion

Here we presented an intriguing comparison of the impact of climate change on complex systems including mosquito vectors, pathogens, and melanoma, which are all indicators of the risk imposed on human health. Our objectives were to use historical, previously unpublished sets of entomological and published clinical data and examine the importance of temperature in contributing to the spreading of the malaria vector An. hyrcanus; to differentiate between sites with a specific frequency of WNV occurrence in Cx. pipiens, and to assess the impact of increasing UVR and HD on melanoma incidence using the EBU-POM regional model data. A similar approach was recently used in observing the dramatic decline in total flying insect biomass in protected areas in Germany [41].

Despite globalisation trends, researchers have become "closed" in their ever-smaller communication circles which are not limited by state or national borders but by the professional language and way of thinking. Thus, by the end of the 20th century, the scientific community has been faced with problems in communication within its confines. One of the principal reasons why vector-borne diseases (VBD) are so difficult to predict, is the complex interaction of multiple factors (vector, host, pathogen, environment including short-term weather patterns and long-term climate change) in space and time [42,43]. Only groups from multiple sectors that communicate and work together on specific aspects of VBD systems will be able to answer the most exciting and pressing problems in the field [42]. Authors of this paper started collaboration in 2003 comparing the climates of the foci of WNV circulation in USA (California Central Valley) and Europe (Bucharest area) with VPS. As compared climates showed quite similar patterns, colleagues from public health and veterinary joined the initial group of meteorologists and medical entomologists. With the idea to better draw upon the resources and insights of the various sectors we designed and implemented research and programmes to achieve better outcomes in the control of zoonoses (diseases that can spread between animals and humans, e.g., WNV disease). This led us to the following achievements: (i) the first detection of WNV in horses in Serbia in 2009 [44]; (ii) the first detection of WNV in mosquitoes in Serbia in 2010 [26]; (iii) the first detection of WNV in wild birds in Serbia in 2012 [45]; (iv) development and implementation of the national programme of WNV surveillance in mosquito, bird and horse population [8], combined with human surveillance in VPS from 2014; (v) increased visibility to ECDC, EFSA and WHO; (vi) the first detection of imported dengue human case in Serbia in 2016 [46]; and (vii) development and implementation of “One Health” programme in VPS from 2018. We are quite sure that much less would have been achieved without multidisciplinary communication and collaboration initiated in 2003, and this paper would not have been compiled.

The temperature trend over the period of observations used in this study and for the future time horizon following A1B scenario obtained with the EBU-POM regional climate model is within the multi-model ensemble (MME) spread of regional climate models with the similar configuration used in the ENSEMBLES project [47]. For the region of interest, temperature change for the period 2001–2030 with respect to the period 1961–1990, in the EBU-POM integration is 0.75°C and in the case of ENSEMBLES MME spread range is 0.5–1.5°C [48]. Furthermore, over period 2001–2030, uncertainty in temperature projections, related to the scenarios is just small fraction of total uncertainty [49], due to the fact that there is no significant difference in greenhouse gases concentrations for different SRES scenarios. Consequently, it can be considered that for the period 2001–2030, in case of other scenarios, the estimated range will be similar. Following this findings, even that selection of single model and single scenario does not allow estimate of the full uncertainty in the future, presented results that relay on temperature change, can be seen as plausible future realisation within total uncertainty range, and realistic response of the complex system for further increase in temperature as a forcing driver. In future studies, it will be beneficial to introduce results of other regional climate models, such as multi-model ensemble from the CORDEX framework, as a need for better understanding of different uncertainties in the results.

Mosquito vectors

Until the end of the 20th century, northern Serbia was considered the northern limit for the distribution of An. hyrcanus in Europe. The first detection in Serbia dates from 1979 [50] from the north part of VPS. We found it in the central part of the Province in 1985 [25] and since then have been noticing its continued spread. Several records north from Vojvodina, in Slovakia in 2004 [51], the Czech Republic in 2005 [52], and Austria in 2012 [53] confirm our observation. Due to its exophilic and exophagic behaviour, An. hyrcanus has never been considered as the primary vector of malaria in Europe. Its spread to higher latitudes, combined with the changes in human behaviour (increased outdoor leisure activities, the mobility of humans, number of seasonal workers in the field, number of migrants in Europe), might increase its vector capacity. The similar northern spread of population distribution range that was registered for An. maculipennis s.s. in Russia [54], and Culiseta longiareolata in southern (in 2012 [55]) and northern (in 2013 [56]) Austria might well represent the tendency described with our model.

The latest illustration of similar changes is the finding of Uranotaenia unguiculata, a thermophilic mosquito species frequently occurring in the Mediterranean basin, in northern Germany, some 300km north of the previous northern limit [57].

During the period 2001–2030 in which the spread and population growth of An. hyrcanus is expected, the intensity of UVR is likely to increase in the VPS (Fig 4A). Positive trends which are present in our observations might indicate that the findings on the negative influence of UVR and blue-light radiation (this radiation has a wavelength between approximately 380nm and 500nm; it has a very short wavelength, and so produces a higher amount of energy) on adult mosquitoes under laboratory conditions [58,59] could not be simply translated to the field. This experimental evidence does not mean unavoidably that the blue light radiation has a significant influence on adult mosquitoes in field conditions since they can actively escape over-exposure to radiation.

The WNV transmission cycle involves mosquito vectors and birds, but equines and humans are also susceptible to infection [60,61]. Although WNV infections have been described in a wide variety of vertebrates, birds are the main natural reservoir. Hundreds of wild and domestic avian species have been described as susceptible to WNV infection, but many of these showed only subclinical infection [62]. In horses, WNV infection is also frequently clinically unapparent, but around 10% of cases develop neurological disorders with up to 50% mortality rates [61,63]. An increasing number of severe outbreaks in horses have been reported in Europe in the past decade, including a large one that took place in northeast Italy in 2008 involving 251 stables with 794 cases and five deaths [63].

From the first detection of WNV in 8 out of 81 dead wild birds found in Serbia [45], each year WNV nucleic acid was detected in dead or captured wild birds during summertime [8]. Serological testing of horses sampled during 2009–2010 showed that 12% of 349 horses from the northern part of Serbia had neutralising WNV antibodies [44]. After that, each year horse WNV cases were detected by the positive serological response (IgG and IgM antibody seroconverted horses) [8] or as a clinical manifestation of West Nile neuroinvasive disease [64].

A positive association between WNV disease and temperature was already reported in Europe [15,65] where climate and landscape were critical predictors of WNV disease outbreaks [66]. Our focus was not on the number of human WNV cases, but the suitability of sites/microhabitats with different air temperatures for WNV circulation in mosquitoes, which may well correspond to a higher risk of transmission. We found that sites with higher TOA and Ta were characterized with the higher frequency of WNV presence in mosquitoes. Clustering of cases with an incidence higher than one in six years coincided with an area of a significant grouping of mosquito, bird, horse, and human cases in 2014 and 2015 [9] (Fig 5). This is in concurrence with Tran et al. [67] and Marcantonio et al. [66], who found that average summer temperatures are positively correlated with WNV human incidence. It seems that temperature in semi-urban areas is an essential environmental factor influencing WNV circulation (landscape suitability for reservoir host and mosquito vector, host availability, and precipitation/water availability are somewhat similar in investigated semi-urban areas of VPS), as it affects both mosquito vector abundance [9] and virus replication. Prediction of a two-fold increase in virus incidence for each 0.5°C increase in TOA indicates but does not necessarily means, that the number of human cases could increase too. Therefore, our findings support the statement that climate change is likely to intensify the re-emergence of WNV in Europe [68].

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Frequency of sampling of WNV infected mosquitoes (1–5 times, coloured numbers) during the period 2010–2016, superimposed over a cluster of mosquito, bird, horse, and human WNV cases in (a) 2014 and (b) 2015. The standard deviation ellipse (1-𝜎) is centered around the mean coordinates of the total number of mosquito, bird, horse and human WNV cases (modified after Petrić et al. [9]).

Melanoma incidence and UVR

According to World Health Organization (WHO) (1992) and many other authors [69,70], exposure to UVR radiation is considered to be a major etiological factor for all three forms of melanoma (i) basal cell carcinoma (BCC), (ii) squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and (iii) malignant melanoma (MM). We found the correlation between MM and climate changes impact on UVR and also the number of HD. We see the impact as a modification of ambient UVR through influences on other variables such as clouds and aerosols. However, that impact might be more pronounced through the impact of changes in outdoor ambient temperature which will influence people’s behaviour and increase the time they spend outdoors, i.e. exposure to both higher UVR and higher temperatures [17]. Experiments with animals clearly show that increased temperatures enhance UVR-induced melanoma compared to the room temperature. In an intriguing study, van der Leun [71] postulated that long-term elevation of temperature by 2°C, as a consequence of climate change, would increase the carcinogenic effects of UVR by 10%. Our results for the UVR in the VPS are generally similar to the ones obtained by Malinović-Milićević et al. [72] and Malinović-Milićević and Radovanović [73], who reported the following changes: (i) the reduction of yearly averages for the total ozone of 3.44% and 3.21%, and (ii) increase in erythemal UVR dose of 6.9% and 9.7% for the periods 1990–1999 and 2000–2009, respectively.

According to Jovanović et al. [7], the incidence rate of MM cancer in VPS for the period 1985–2004 is higher than in central Serbia and is comparable with the majority of the central European countries with the highest melanoma incidence rate in the world [74]. However, most studies do not deal more quantitatively with the relationship between UVR doses and exposure during HD days, and as it has been stated above, the cumulative exposure to sunlight is probably the most critical risk factor for MM and SCC cancers, while BCC is more associated with intensive short-term exposure [75]. Thus, the increasing trend in the number of melanoma incidence in the VPS for the period 1985–2004 (Fig 4D) can be ascribed to (i) the increase in the number of HD days for about 55% and (ii) the increase in cumulative values of UVR doses for the period 1985–2030. In a cohort study, Wu et al. [76] considered the impact of long-term UV radiation flux on skin cancer risk. Comparing with participants in the lowest quintile of cumulative UV radiation flux in adulthood, they found that participants in the highest quintile had multivariable-adjusted risks (cumulative incidence). According to Vandenbroucke and Pearce [28], some studies where cumulative incidence is used can over-represent the trends.

From a statistical point of view, the linear regression model for modelling the cumulative incidence of melanoma versus the difference of the cumulative UVR doses for hot and warm days (Fig 4D) is acceptable. Parameters are statistically highly significant (r = 0.9712 and p = 0.000003) while analysis of residual distribution shows a good agreement with the normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test, W = 0.9608, p = 0.7952).

We hope that our results will indicate the importance of long-term monitoring/surveillance programs for providing crucial data to evidence the ongoing biological alteration triggered by climate change. Nonetheless, it is difficult to say how broadly our data represent the trends elsewhere. We believe that the specificity of the observations offers a unique window into the state of some of the planet's pressing threats to human health. Also, in the case where humans are exposed to UVR, due to the nature of their work (the VPS is an exclusively agricultural area), it is necessary to (i) establish a broader network for UVR measurements and warning centres and (ii) increase the awareness of the melanoma as a result of increased amount of UVR.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Overview of dry-ice trap samples sizes.

For each year, the number of locations sampled, the number of location re-sampled, and total number of samples are presented. Exposure time at the trap locations was similar (14 ± 2h).

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Number of the total trap nights, positive trap nights and Anopheles hyrcanus specimens sampled at 54 selected sites in the Vojvodina Province, Serbia during the years 1985–86, 2004–5 and 2014–15.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Frequency of sampling of WNV infected mosquitoes (1–5 times) in the Vojvodina Province, Serbia, during the period 2010–2016.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

For the collection of samples over the period 1985–2005, we warmly thank Petar Igrić, Dragan Aradski, Dragan Dondur, Vid Srdić, Mihaela Kavran, Slavica Vaselek, and Dubravka Pudar. The works of Dušan Petrić and Mina Petrić were done under the frame of EurNegVec COST Action TD1303.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This paper was realised as a part of the projects "Studying climate change and its influence on the environment: impacts, adaptation and mitigation" (III43007 - DTM, DP, IHC, VDj, ENĐ, IA, GM, AIĆ) and TR31084 (DP, TP, AIĆ) financed by the Ministry of Education and Science, Republic of Serbia (http://www.mpn.gov.rs/). Historical data for mosquito vectors are the outputs of projects supported by the Veterinary Directorate, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Protection, Republic of Serbia (http://www.minpolj.gov.rs/), and Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, project no. 114-451-2142/2011 (DP, TP, IHC, AIĆ - http://apv-visokoobrazovanje.vojvodina.gov.rs/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. MP is affiliated to Avia-GIS NV, which did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Role of Funders Avia-GIS NV provided support in the form of salaries for author (MP) but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of the author (MP) are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R, et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. The Lancet. 2009;373: 1693–1733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mihailović DT, Lalić B, Drešković N, Mimić G, Djurdjević V, Jančić M. Climate change effects on crop yields in Serbia and related shifts of Köppen climate zones under the SRES-A1B and SRES-A2. Int J Climatol. 2015;35: 3320–3334. 10.1002/joc.4209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.King LJ, Anderson LR, Blackmore CG, Blackwell MJ, Lautner EA, Marcus LC, et al. Executive summary of the AVMA One Health Initiative Task Force report. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2008;233: 259–261. 10.2460/javma.233.2.259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Health—European External Action Service [Internet]. [cited 29 Mar 2019]. Available: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2348/health_ku
  • 5.One World, One Health: OIE—World Organisation for Animal Health [Internet]. [cited 27 Mar 2019]. Available: http://www.oie.int/en/for-the-media/editorials/detail/article/one-world-one-health/
  • 6.Kjellstrom T, McMichael AJ. Climate change threats to population health and well-being: the imperative of protective solutions that will last. Glob Health Action. 2013;6 10.3402/gha.v6i0.20816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jovanović M, M Bogdanović G, Mijatović Jovanović V, Jeremić P, Ac Nikolić E. Analysis of cutaneous melanoma in the province of Vojvodina. J BUON Off J Balk Union Oncol. 2009;14: 441–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Petrović T, Šekler M, Petrić D, Lazić S, Debeljak Z, Vidanović D, et al. Methodology and results of integrated WNV surveillance programmes in Serbia. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0195439 10.1371/journal.pone.0195439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Petrić D, Petrović T, Hrnjaković Cvjetković I, Zgomba M, Milošević V, Lazić G, et al. West Nile virus “circulation” in Vojvodina, Serbia: Mosquito, bird, horse and human surveillance. Mol Cell Probes. 2017;31: 28–36. 10.1016/j.mcp.2016.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zeller H, Lenglet A, Bortel WV. West Nile virus: the need to strengthen preparedness in Europe. Eurosurveillance. 2010;15: 19647 10.2807/ese.15.34.19647-en [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.World Health Organization, World Malaria Report 2018. Geneva: The Organization; 2018.
  • 12.Vakali A, Patsoula E, Spanakos G, Danis K, Vassalou E, Tegos N, et al. Malaria in Greece, 1975 to 2010. Euro Surveill Bull Eur Sur Mal Transm Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2012;17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Epidemiological update: West Nile virus transmission season in Europe, 2018 [Internet]. [cited 09Sep 2019]. Available from: https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/epidemiological-update-west-nile-virus-transmission-season-europe-2018
  • 14.Wilson N, Lush D, Baker MG. Meteorological and climate change themes at the 2010 International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases. Euro Surveill Bull Eur Sur Mal Transm Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2010;15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Calzolari M, Pautasso A, Montarsi F, Albieri A, Bellini R, Bonilauri P, et al. West Nile virus surveillance in 2013 via mosquito screening in northern Italy and the influence of weather on virus circulation. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0140915 10.1371/journal.pone.0140915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Apalla Z, Lallas A, Sotiriou E, Lazaridou E, Ioannides D. Epidemiological trends in skin cancer. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017;7: 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kerr JB, Seckmeyer G. Surface ultraviolet radiation: past and future Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2002. Geneva; 2003. Report No.: 47.
  • 18.Summary for Policy makers. In: Nakićenović N, Swart R, editors. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press—Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2000. pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Moss R, Babiker M, Brinkman S, Calvo E, Carter T, Edmonds J et al. Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts, and response strategies. IPCC Expert Meeting Report on New Scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. 2008. pp. 1–132.
  • 20.Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift. 2006;15(3):259–263. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Đurđević V, Rajković B. Development of the EBU-POM coupled regional climate model and results from climate change experiments In: Mihailovic DT, Lalic B, editors. Advances in environmental modeling and measurements. New York, USA: Nova Science Publishers Inc; 2012. pp. 23–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Roeckner E, Bäuml G, Bonaventura L. The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM5. Part I: Model description Report. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology; 2003 p. 127. Report No.: 349.
  • 23.Jungclaus JH, Keenlyside N, Botzet M, Haak H, Luo J-J, Latif M, et al. Ocean Circulation and Tropical Variability in the Coupled Model ECHAM5/MPI-OM. J Clim. 2006;19: 3952–3972. 10.1175/JCLI3827.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Srdić Ž, Zgomba M, Petrić D. Les moustiques (Dip.Culicidae) et la demoustication en Vojvodina, Yugoslavia. IV Congrès sur la protection de la santé humaine et des cultures en milieu tropical. Marseille, France; 1986. pp. 489–495.
  • 25.Petrić D. Seasonal and daily activity of adult mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) in Vojvodina Province. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Novi Sad. 1989.
  • 26.Petrić D, Hrnjaković-Cvjetković I, Radovanov J, Cvjetković D, Jerant-Patić V, Milošević V, et al. West Nile virus surveillance in humans and mosquitoes and detection of cell fusing agent virus in Vojvodina Province (Serbia). HealthMED 2012;6(2):462–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Becker N, Petrić D, Zgomba M, Boase C, Madon M, Dahl C, et al. Mosquitoes and their control. 2nd ed Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vandenbroucke JP, Pearce N. Incidence rates in dynamic populations. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(5):1472–1479. 10.1093/ije/dys142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Malinovic-Milicevic S, Mihailovic DT, Lalic B, Dreskovic N. Thermal environment and UV-B radiation indices in the Vojvodina region, Serbia. Clim Res. 2013;57: 111–121. 10.3354/cr01163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mihailović DT, Mimić G, Arsenić I. Climate Predictions: The Chaos and Complexity in Climate Models. In: Advances in Meteorology [Internet]. 2014. [cited 27 Mar 2019]. 10.1155/2014/878249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Richman JS, Moorman JR. Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2000;278: H2039–2049. 10.1152/ajpheart.2000.278.6.H2039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Krzic A, Tosic I, Djurdjevic V, Veljovic K, Rajkovic B. Changes in some indices over Serbia according to the SRES A1B and A2 scenarios. Climate Research. 2011;49: 73–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cavicchia L, Scoccimarro E, Gualdi S, Marson P, Ahrens B, Berthou S, et al. Mediterranean extreme precipitation: a multi-model assessment. Clim. Dyn. 2016. 10.1007/s00382-016-3245-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dell’ Aquila A, Mariotti A, Bastin S, Calmanti S, Cavicchia L, Deque M, et al. Evaluation of simulated decadal variations over the Euro-Mediterranean region from ENSEMBLES to Med-CORDEX. Clim. Dyn. 2016. 10.1007/s00382-016-3143-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mihailović DT, Nikolić-Đorić E, Malinović-Milićević S, Singh VP, Mihailović A, Stošić T et al. The Choice of an Appropriate Information Dissimilarity Measure for Hierarchical Clustering of River Streamflow Time Series, Based on Calculated Lyapunov Exponent and Kolmogorov Measures. Entropy. 2019; 21: 215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Frison TW, Abarbanel HDI. Ocean gravity waves: A nonlinear analysis of observations. Geophys Res. 1997; 102(C1): 1051–1059. 10.1029/96JC02993 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mihailovic DT, Mimic G, Arsenic I. Climate predictions: the chaos and complexity in climate models, Advances in Meteorology. 2014; 10.1155/2014/878249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016. Available: http://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 39.HS Global Inc. Eviews [Internet]. CA, USA: HS Global Inc.; 2016. Available: http://www.eviews.com [Google Scholar]
  • 40.TIBCO Software Inc. Statistica [Internet]. CA, USA: TIBCO Software Inc.; Available: https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-statistica-13-3-0
  • 41.Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PloS One. 2017;12: e0185809 10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Moore CG. Interdisciplinary research in the ecology of vector-borne diseases: Opportunities and needs. Journal of Vector Ecology 2008;33(2):218.. 10.3376/1081-1710-33.2.218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zimmerman B. Engaging with Complexity: Thrive! A Plan for a Healthier Nova Scotia. 2014; [e-print] Available from: https://thrive.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/Thrive-Summit-2014-Brenda-Zimmerman-En.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lupulović D, Martin-Acebes MA, Lazić S, Alonso-Padilla J, Blazquez AB, Escribano-Romero E, et al. First serological evidence of West Nile virus activity in horses in Serbia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11(9):1303–5.40. 10.1089/vbz.2010.0249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Petrović T, Blazquez AB, Lupulović D, Lazić G, Escribano-Romero E, Fabijan D, et al. Monitoring West Nile virus (WNV) infection in wild birds in Serbia during 2012: First isolation and characterisation of WNV strains from Serbia. Eurosurveillance. 2013;18(44):1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Petrović V, Turkulov V, Ilić S, Milošević V, Petrović M, Petrić D, et al. First report of imported case of dengue fever in Republic of Serbia. Vol. 14, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2016. p. 60–1. 10.1016/j.tmaid.2016.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.van der Linden P and Mitchell JFB, editors. ENSEMBLES Climate Change and its Impacts Summary of research and results from the ENSEMBLES project. Exeter: Met Office Hadley Centre;. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ministry of Environmental Protection of the Republic of Serbia. Second National Communication of the Republic of Serbia under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [Internet]. Belgrade: The Ministry; 2017. August 162p [cited 2019 Sep 10]. Available from: http://www.klimatskepromene.rs/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SNC_eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hawkins E, Sutton R. The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional Climate Predictions. Bull Amer Meteor. 2009; 90(8): 1095–1108. 10.1175/2009bams2607.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Adamović Ž. Distribution and abundance of anopheline mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) in Vojvodina, Serbia. Acta Entomol Jugosl. 1979;15: 82. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Halgoš J, Benková I. First record of Anopheles hyrcanus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Slovakia. Biológia. 2004;59: 68. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Votýpka J, Šeblová V, Rádrová J. Spread of the West Nile virus vector Culex modestus and the potential malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus in central Europe. J Vector Ecol. 2008;33: 269–277. 10.3376/1081-1710-33.2.269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lebl K, Brugger K, Rubel F. Predicting Culex pipiens/restuans population dynamics by interval lagged weather data. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6: 129 10.1186/1756-3305-6-129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Novikov YM, Vaulin OV. Expansion of Anopheles maculipennis s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae) to northeastern Europe and northwestern Asia: Causes and Consequences. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7: 389 10.1186/1756-3305-7-389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Seidel B, Nowotny N, Duh D, Indra A, Hufnagl P, Allerberger F. First records of the thermophilic mosquito Culiseta longiareolata (Macquart, 1838) in Austria, 2012, and in Slovenia, 2013. J Eur Mosq Control Assoc. 2013;31: 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zittra C, Waringer J, Werblow A, Melaun C, Fuehrer H-P. Reconfirmation of Culiseta (Allotheobaldia) longiareolata (Macquart 1838) (Diptera: Culicidae) in Austria. The first sequence-confirmed findings in northeastern Austria. Acta ZooBot Austria. 2014;150: 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tippelt L, Walther D, Kampen H. The thermophilic mosquito species Uranotaenia unguiculata Edwards, 1913 (Diptera: Culicidae) moves north in Germany. Parasitol Res. 2017;116: 3437–3440. 10.1007/s00436-017-5652-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Riordan DF. Effects of ultraviolet radiation on adults of Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq News. 1969;29 Available: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19711000053 [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Hori M, Shibuya K, Sato M, Saito Y. Lethal effects of short-wavelength visible light on insects. Sci Rep. 2014;4: 7383 10.1038/srep07383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kramer L, Li J, Shi PY. West Nile virus. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:171–181. 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70030-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Blitvich BJ. Transmission dynamics and changing epidemiology of West Nile virus. Anim Health Res Rev. 2008;9:71–86. 10.1017/S1466252307001430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Komar N. West Nile virus: epidemiology and ecology in North America. Adv Vir Res. 2003;6:185–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Calistri P, Giovannini A, Hubalek Z, Ionescu A, Monaco F, Savini G et al. Epidemiology of West Nile in Europe and in the Mediterranean basin. Open Virol J. 2010;4(1):29–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Medić S, Lazić S, Petrović T, Petrić D, Samojlović M, Lazić G et al. Evidence of the first clinical case of equine neuroinvasive West Nile Disease in Serbia, 2018. Acta veterinaria 2019;69(1):123–130. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Paz S, Malkinson D, Green MS, Tsioni G, Papa A, Danis K, et al. Permissive Summer Temperatures of the 2010 European West Nile Fever Upsurge. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e56398 10.1371/journal.pone.0056398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Marcantonio M, Rizzoli A, Metz M, Rosà R, Marini G, Chadwick E, et al. Identifying the Environmental Conditions Favouring West Nile Virus Outbreaks in Europe. Gourbiere S, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0121158 10.1371/journal.pone.0121158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Tran A, Sudre B, Paz S, Rossi M, Desbrosse A, Chevalier V, et al. Environmental predictors of West Nile fever risk in Europe. Int J Health Geogr. 2014;13: 26 10.1186/1476-072X-13-26 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Paz S. Climate change impacts on West Nile virus transmission in a global context. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;370: 20130561–20130561. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0561 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Narayanan DL, Saladi RN, Fox JL. Ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer. Int J Dermatol. 2010;49: 978–986. 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2010.04474.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lacy K, Alwan W. Skin cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2013;41: 402–405. 10.1016/j.mpmed.2013.04.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Leun JC van der. Uv-Carcinogenesis. Photochem Photobiol. 1984;39: 861–868. 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1984.tb08872.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Malinovic-Milicevic S, Mihailovic DT, Radovanovic MM. Reconstruction of the erythemal UV radiation data in Novi Sad (Serbia) using the NEOPLANTA parametric model. Theor Appl Climatol. 2015;121: 131–138. 10.1007/s00704-014-1223-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Malinović-Milićević S and Radovanović M 2016. UV radiation and heat wives in Vojvodina (Book 87) (Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Geography „Jovan Cvijić”; ) p ISBN. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.de Vries E, Tyczynski J, Parkin MD. Cutaneous malignant melanoma in Europe. Eur Netw Cancer Regist Int Agency Res Cancer. 2003;ENCR Cancer Fact Sheets no.4 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Demers AA, Nugent Z, Mihalcioiu C, Wiseman MC, Kliewer EV. Trends of nonmelanoma skin cancer from 1960 through 2000 in a Canadian population. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53: 320–328. 10.1016/j.jaad.2005.03.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wu S, Han J, Laden F, Qureshi AA. Long-term ultraviolet flux, other potential risk factors, and skin cancer risk: a cohort study. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers and prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2014;23(6):1080–1089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abdallah M Samy

21 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-16900

Assessment of climate change impact on malaria vectors, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Petric,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Assessment of climate change impact on malaria vectors, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model" (#PONE-D-19-16900) for review by PLOS ONE. As with all papers submitted to the journal, your manuscript was fully evaluated by academic editor (myself) and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important health topic, but they raised substantial concerns about the paper that must be addressed before this manuscript can be accurately assessed for meeting the PLOS ONE criteria. Therefore, if you feel these issues can be adequately addressed, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We can’t, of course, promise publication at that time.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdallah M. Samy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note one or more authors are affiliated to Avia-GIS NV.

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

2. We note that [Figure(s) 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [1] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

I invited and received two reviews for your manuscript. All reviews raised some substantial concerns about your manuscript as it currently stands. As such, I would recommend “major revision”. I would kindly ask you to go through all comments raised by each reviewer and address them properly before sending a revised version of this manuscript. Please check all PLOS ONE style requirements available via https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines before submitting the revised version.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments on the manuscript PONE-D-19-16900

Title: Assessment of climate change impact on malaria vectors, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

Authors: Dragutin T. Mihailović, Dušan Petrić, Tamaš Petrović, Ivana Hrnjaković Cvjetković, Vladimir Đurđević, Emilija Nikolić Đorić, Ilija Arsenić, Mina Petrić, Gordan Mimić

The work presented in paper Mihailović et al. is interesting. The objective of the authors was to compare data from the mosquito field collections and medical studies with regional 29 climate model projections to examine the impact of climate change on the circulation of West Nile virus (WNV), the spreading of the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus and the incidence of melanoma. The comparison was done with the coupled regional Eta Belgrade University and Princeton Ocean Model for the period 1961-2015 using the A1B scenario, and the expected changes up to 2030. Overall, significant correlation was found between the frequency of WNV in Culex pipiens and the overwintering temperature averages and seasonal relative humidity at the sampling sites. Correlation was also found between the spreading and relative abundance of Anopheles hyrcanus and the trend of the mean annual temperature. There was also an increase in melanoma incidence.

Minor comments to authors

Title

Authors wrote “malaria vectors” but the only presented data on only one vector Anopheles hyrcanus

Abstract

L32: ……………and 10-years. Delete the hyphen

L37: ……………Culex. pipiens. Delete the dot

Introduction

L49-53: Are the authors referring to themselves when they stated, “The authors (……….), have been working together…….”?

L72: Authors should write, “Climate change……..” instead of “The climate change……..”

L75: Author should write, “Melanoma mortality…………..within the period 1985-2004

L78: Authors should define the acronym ENCR, as this is used here for the first time.

L81-82: Authors should use past tense in the sentence “……we compared considerable of previously……”

L54-55: This sentence is not clear for me. I suggest this: “In this paper, we analysed observed data collected over a period of 31 years……”

Materials and Methods

L96: Authors should define SRES-A1B scenario for the first time.

L115: Authors used only one formula, the subtitle should be in singular

Results

- Authors should specify the exact p-values instead of writing p<0.05 or p>0.05

L207: “The Poisson regression model for the dependence of a number of detections per site (frequency-λ)…………………………is highly significant”. Authors stated it was highly significant, but from my perspective, p<0.05 is not a specific indication of high significance. Could the give the exact value of p?

- Fig2b and 2c are fuzzy

- Fig4. Colors of fig4c are confusing

It will be more interesting if the authors used only vector-borne diseases data in this paper.

N.B: Other comments are incorporated in the manuscript

Reviewer #2: Authors are presenting an interesting paper regarding the effects of climate change in Northern Serbia considering three independent measures: The spread of Anopheles hyrcanus, the presence of West Nile Virus in Culex pipiens, and the incidence of melanoma cases. The paper is interesting, however, discussion should be improved specially on the uncertainty of future predictions since they are using just one climatic model. Further, their results should be stated more carefully since their model rely on assumptions (e.g., manually selected variables) which are also not clearly stated.

Major comments:

The paper is showing results in the order: malaria vector, WNV, and melanoma. I suggest following the same order in the abstract.

Authors are using one of the SRES future climatic scenarios; currently the standard for future climate studies are the RCP scenarios. Authors should describe the nature of the SRES-A1B scenario, which is not mentioned in any part of the study. Further, authors should explicitly discuss uncertainty on their predictions since they are not using other scenarios or other climatic models.

Lines 176-180. There is no discussion or results regarding these sentences. Was the comparison between EBU-POM model and the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia perfect? What is the implication of this approach on the overall paper?

Line 277-280: There is no evidence in this paper supporting this affirmation since the variables analyzed corresponded to three temperature related variables and just one considering humidity. Moreover, results were never compared statistically; modify accordingly.

Figure 2: Expand the acronym CRCM. Also, double check the legend, which is describing red and green colors but the figure is only showing different shades of blue.

Figure 4: Add WD and HD to the corresponding legend of the graphic. Is there a Croatian sentence in the legend? Please describe how the melanoma incidence was calculated, is the y axis showing incidence or number of cases? Cumulative incidence is known to over-represent trends (see reference: Vandenbroucke & Pearce, 2012, doi: 10.1093/ije/dys142), try to use incidence rate instead.

In table S3 consider adding the number of mosquito samples per site.

Figure 6 can be replaced with the statistics of such graphic for readers’ interpretation.

Authors are justifying the paper under the ‘One Health’ concept, however they are not discussing the idea further. I would like discussing explicitly the benefits of putting together a set of multidisciplinary specialists to the development of the manuscript and how this contribution is part of the one health concept.

Minor comments:

Please use Oxford comma across the manuscript: e.g., Line 30: ‘the malaria vector, and the incidence of melanoma’.

Line 28: Authors never discuss problems related with animal health, thus, I suggest avoiding this kind of affirmations (e.g., line 81).

Line 28: Methods on the paper should be written in past tense: e.g., COMPARED. Review this in the rest of the manuscript, e.g., line 82.

Line 30: ‘the spreading of ONE malaria vector’

Line 37: ‘Culex.’ should be corrected, only Cx.?

Line 40: This is the first time you are mentioning HD, please expand the acronym, review this in the rest of the manuscript, for example EU in line 50, or ENCR in line 78.

Line 44: Specify the risk that you are addressing with this research.

Line 54: extra ‘Collected’ after ‘observed data’, please erase.

Line 55: Add ‘are’ after the word ‘melanoma’ at the end of the sentence.

Line 58: Here you need a reference for the environmental threat represented for the animal and humans at the Pannonian plane.

Line 63: You need a reference for the affirmation of malaria as worldwide detrimental vector-borne disease.

Line 70: Consider adding a reference of how temperature and relative humidity are principal abiotic factors for WNV and An. hyrcanus.

Line 76: Be consistent across the whole manuscript, use either - or – without spaces to separate year timeframes, 1976–2004 is preferred.

Line 102: Add corresponding reference for the Köpen classification.

Line 122: “Data were...”

Line 126: 1985–1986.

Line 158: Briefly describe the method of WNV detection, i.e., RT-PCR or the corresponding one before referencing Petrovic et al 2018.

Line 172: Describe the indicators briefly before referencing Jovanovic et al 2009.

Line 227: Is the formula correct: warm days - WD?

Line 263: Consider changing ‘indicate that the findings supporting’ by ‘support’

Line 273: Authors are not showing incidence rates, just presence of WNV in mosquitoes.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Koffi Mensah Ahadji-Dabla

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments on PONE-D-19-16900.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-16900_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0227679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227679.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Sep 2019

Dear Dr Samy,

We are pleased to submit the revised version of “Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model” (#PONE-D-19-16900). We are thankful to the academic editor for time and efforts he invested in providing detailed instructions for changes needed before resubmission.

We corrected the style in order to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

We amended our Competing Interests Statement, and it now reads as follows:

Competing Interests Statement:

All authors except MP have declared that no competing interests exist. Commercial affiliation of MP is to Avia-GIS NV (commercial funder) in which she is under an employment contract since September 2016. Avia-GIS NV provided support in the form of salaries for author (MP) but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

We amended our Funding statement and Role of Funders, and it now reads as follows:

Funding Statement:

This paper was realised as a part of the projects "Studying climate change and its influence on the environment: impacts, adaptation and mitigation" (III43007 - DTM, DP, IHC, VDj, ENĐ, IA, GM, AIĆ) and TR31084 (DP, TP, AIĆ) financed by the Ministry of Education and Science, Republic of Serbia (http://www.mpn.gov.rs/). Historical data for mosquito vectors are the outputs of projects supported by the Veterinary Directorate, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Protection, Republic of Serbia (http://www.minpolj.gov.rs/), and Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, project no. 114-451-2142/2011 (DP, TP, IHC, AIĆ - http://apv-visokoobrazovanje.vojvodina.gov.rs/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. MP is affiliated to Avia-GIS NV, which did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Role of Funders:

Avia-GIS NV provided support in the form of salaries for author (MP) but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of the author (MP) are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

Fig 1 copyright:

In compliance with the CC BY 4.0 license, we have changed Fig 1 to include a NaturalEarth baseline map (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/). We have updated the figure caption to include source information.

Authorship changes:

Aleksandra Ignjatović Ćupina (AIC) contributed to the acquisition of the Anopheles hyrcanus data and has been added to the list of authors. All authors are informed and express agreement regarding this change.

Corresponding authorship changes:

Dušan Petrić (DP) is added as the second corresponding author as he was involved in the design and sampling of Anopheles hyrcanus and Culex pipiens.

We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and advisors in reviewing the manuscript. Please find below detailed responses to the reviewers, whom we thank for their careful consideration of the manuscript. We also reviewed the manuscript for any additional errors and made small changes that are tracked in the attached document (“Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”).

Line numbers for the corrected text are given in red according to the enumeration in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”.

Reviewer #1: Comments on the manuscript PONE-D-19-16900

Title: Assessment of climate change impact on malaria vectors, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model. Authors: Dragutin T. Mihailović, Dušan Petrić, Tamaš Petrović, Ivana Hrnjaković Cvjetković, Vladimir Đurđević, Emilija Nikolić Đorić, Ilija Arsenić, Mina Petrić, Gordan Mimić

The work presented in paper Mihailović et al. is interesting. The objective of the authors was to compare data from the mosquito field collections and medical studies with regional 29 climate model projections to examine the impact of climate change on the circulation of West Nile virus (WNV), the spreading of the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus and the incidence of melanoma. The comparison was done with the coupled regional Eta Belgrade University and Princeton Ocean Model for the period 1961-2015 using the A1B scenario, and the expected changes up to 2030. Overall, significant correlation was found between the frequency of WNV in Culex pipiens and the overwintering temperature averages and seasonal relative humidity at the sampling sites. Correlation was also found between the spreading and relative abundance of Anopheles hyrcanus and the trend of the mean annual temperature. There was also an increase in melanoma incidence.

Minor comments to authors

Title

Authors wrote “malaria vectors” but the only presented data on only one vector Anopheles hyrcanus

Corrected according to the suggestion.

Abstract

L32: ……………and 10-years. Delete the hyphen

L36: Corrected according to the suggestion.

L37: ……………Culex. pipiens. Delete the dot

L44: We abbreviated the genus name to Cx. because name was spelled in the previous sentence.

Introduction

L49-53: Are the authors referring to themselves when they stated, “The authors (……….), have been working together…….”?

Yes, we tried to make it clear with correction below.

L56: Corrected to: “The authors of the manuscript (……….), have been working together…….”

L72: Authors should write, “Climate change……..” instead of “The climate change……..”

L86: Corrected according to the suggestion.

L75: Author should write, “Melanoma mortality…………..within the period 1985-2004

L89-91: Corrected according to the suggestion.

L78: Authors should define the acronym ENCR, as this is used here for the first time.

L83: … using ENCR data

L93-94: Changed to:

… using European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) data

L81-82: Authors should use past tense in the sentence “……we compared considerable of previously……”

L97: Corrected according to the suggestion.

L54-55: This sentence is not clear for me. I suggest this: “In this paper, we analysed observed data collected over a period of 31 years……”

L61: Corrected according to the suggestion, “collected” erased because of tautology.

Materials and Methods

L96: Authors should define SRES-A1B scenario for the first time.

The SRES-A1B scenario is defined in the text, and central differences to RCP explained. Due to this, authors think that selection of scenario, to some extent, is irrelevant for the presented results.

L96: … and the period 2001-2030 using the SRES-A1B scenario.

L113-122 Corrected to:

… and the period 2001-2030 according to the A1B scenario defined in Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (Nakićenović and Swart, 2000), from now on SRES-A1B. SRES scenarios, which defined future global greenhouse gases emissions, were extensively used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third, and Fourth Assessment Reports. The main storyline behind the A1B scenario is rapid economic growth, followed by a significant increase in greenhouse gases concentrations in the future. In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is introduced, which are possible future concentration pathways without any storyline behind them. Comparing SRES-A1B and RCPs in terms of the greenhouse gases concentrations, at the end of this century SRES-A1B is the closest to RCP6.0, but for the time horizon used in this study, up to 2030, the difference between any SRES or RCPs are relatively small.

New references included:

Summary for Policy makers. In: Nakićenović N, Swart R, editors. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press - Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. pp. 1-21

L115: Authors used only one formula, the subtitle should be in singular

L141: Corrected according to the suggestion.

Results

- Authors should specify the exact p-values instead of writing p<0.05 or p>0.05

L260-281: Corrected according to the suggestion. The section was updated to include the exact p-values.

L207: “The Poisson regression model for the dependence of a number of detections per site (frequency-λ)…………………………is highly significant”. Authors stated it was highly significant, but from my perspective, p<0.05 is not a specific indication of high significance. Could the give the exact value of p?

L282-283: Corrected according to the suggestion. Exact p value is not below 0,01 (it is 0.01393) which is considered as high significance by many authors, so we erased the word “highly”.

- Fig2b and 2c are fuzzy

Thank you for your comment. The figures were reformatted to higher resolution according to PACE.

- Fig4. Colors of fig4c are confusing

Figures 4c has been adapted to have more contrasting colors.

It will be more interesting if the authors used only vector-borne diseases data in this paper.

N.B: Other comments are incorporated in the manuscript

Authors appreciate very much the effort invested in the improvement of the manuscript quality. All suggestions are incorporated into the revised version except one concerning the spelling of NUTS. Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics is originally abbreviated NUTS from the French version (Nomenclature des Unités territoriales statistiques).

Reviewer #2:

Authors are presenting an interesting paper regarding the effects of climate change in Northern Serbia considering three independent measures: The spread of Anopheles hyrcanus, the presence of West Nile Virus in Culex pipiens, and the incidence of melanoma cases. The paper is interesting, however, discussion should be improved specially on the uncertainty of future predictions since they are using just one climatic model. Further, their results should be stated more carefully since their model rely on assumptions (e.g., manually selected variables) which are also not clearly stated.

Discussion is corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion:

L345-352: New text added:

The temperature trend over the period of observations used in this study and for the future time horizon following A1B scenario obtained with the EBU-POM regional climate model is within the multi-model ensemble (MME) spread of regional climate models with similar configuration used in the ENSEMBLES project (van der Linden and Mitchell, 2009). For the period 2001-2030 the temperature change for the region of interest in the EBU-POM integration is 0.75 �C concerning the period 1961-1990 and for the same period ENSEMBLES MME spread range is 0.5-1.5 �C (MEP, 2017). Following this finding, other results presented in this paper that relay on temperature change, can be seen as an estimate that will be within uncertainty related to the future temperature projection.

New references included:

van der Linden P and Mitchell JFB, editors. ENSEMBLES Climate Change and its Impacts. Summary of research and results from the ENSEMBLES project. Exeter: Met Office Hadley Centre;. 2009.:

Ministry of Environmental Protection of the Republic of Serbia. Second National Communication of the Republic of Serbia under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [Internet]. Belgrade: The Ministry; 2017 Aug. 162p [cited 2019 Sep 10]. Available from: http://www.klimatskepromene.rs/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SNC_eng.pdf

Major comments:

The paper is showing results in the order: malaria vector, WNV, and melanoma. I suggest following the same order in the abstract.

Changed as suggested.

Authors are using one of the SRES future climatic scenarios; currently the standard for future climate studies are the RCP scenarios. Authors should describe the nature of the SRES-A1B scenario, which is not mentioned in any part of the study. Further, authors should explicitly discuss uncertainty on their predictions since they are not using other scenarios or other climatic models.

Authors addressed this comment in the text corrected. Please check response to the L113-122 and L 345-352 above.

Lines 176-180. There is no discussion or results regarding these sentences. Was the comparison between EBU-POM model and the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia perfect? What is the implication of this approach on the overall paper?

This is a valuable comment since the information measure(s) is(are) a good indicator of the reliability of model outputs and thus on the overall paper. The increasing complexity of climate models is a growing concern in the modelling community. However, because we invested a serious effort to make our models more “realistic”, we included more parameters and processes. With increasing model complexity, we are less able to manage and understand the model behaviour. Thus, from a user’s perspective, the following question is entirely natural: “How complex model (EBU-POM model in our case) do I need to use to study this problem (assessment of climate change impact on malaria vectors, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the VPS) with this data set (temperature and/or precipitation)?”. In the revised version, we inserted the additional text.

L229-249: New text added:

We considered the papers by Mihailović et al. [2,24] in which Kolmogorov complexity measures (Kolmogorov complexity (KC), Kolmogorov complexity spectrum KC spectrum) and the highest value of the KC spectrum (KCM)) and sample entropy (SE) [25] were used to quantify the regularity and complexity of air temperature and precipitation time series, obtained by the EBU-POM model, representing both deterministic chaos and stochastic processes. We considered the complexity of the EBU-POM model using the observed and modelled time series of temperature and precipitation. We computed the KC spectrum, KC, KCM and SE values for temperature and precipitation. The calculations were performed for the entire time interval 1961–1990: (1) on a daily basis with a size of N =10958 samples for temperature and (2) on a monthly basis with a size N =360 for the precipitation. The simulated time series of temperature and precipitation were obtained by the EBU-POM model for the given period. The observed time series of temperature and precipitations for two stations: Sombor (SO) (88 m a.s.l.) and Novi Sad (NS) (84 m a.s.l.) in the considered area, were taken from daily meteorological reports of the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia. For both sites, the modelled complexity is lower than the observed one, but with the reliability which is in the interval values allowed by the information measures (KC, KCM, and SE) (Krzic et al. 2011, Dell’ Aquila et al. 2016, Cavicchia et al. 2016). These findings mean that the models with a KC (and KCM) complexity lower than the measured time series complexity cannot always reconstruct some of the structures contained in the observed data. However, it does not mean that outputs from EBU-POM model do not correctly simulate climate elements since both sites values indicate the absence of stochastic influences, providing reliable projections of the climate elements.

New references included:

Krzic A, Tosic I, Djurdjevic V, Veljovic K, Rajkovic B. Changes in some indices over Serbia according to the SRES A1B and A2 scenarios. Climate Research. 2011;49: 73-86.

Cavicchia L, Scoccimarro E, Gualdi S, Marson P, Ahrens B, Berthou S, et al. Mediterranean extreme precipitation: a multi-model assessment. Clim. Dyn. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00382-016-3245-x

Dell’ Aquila A, Mariotti A, Bastin S, Calmanti S, Cavicchia L, Deque M, et al. Evaluation of simulated decadal variations over the Euro-Mediterranean region from ENSEMBLES to Med-CORDEX. Clim. Dyn. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3143-2

Line 277-280: There is no evidence in this paper supporting this affirmation since the variables analyzed corresponded to three temperature related variables and just one considering humidity. Moreover, results were never compared statistically; modify accordingly.

Corrections made as suggested. The sentence “It seems that temperature in semi-urban areas dominates the other environmental factors influencing WNV circulation in nature (e.g. landscape suitability for reservoir host and mosquito vector, host availability, precipitation), as it is the primary factor affecting both mosquito vector abundance and virus replication.” now reads as:

L400-404: Corrected to: It seems that temperature in semi-urban areas is an essential environmental factor influencing WNV circulation (landscape suitability for reservoir host and mosquito vector, host availability, and precipitation/water availability are somewhat similar in investigated semi-urban areas of VPS), as it affects both mosquito vector abundance and virus replication.

Figure 2: Expand the acronym CRCM. Also, double check the legend, which is describing red and green colors but the figure is only showing different shades of blue.

Corrections made as suggested.

L173-179: Fig 2. (a) The regional climate model EBU-POM projection of the mean annual air temperature (Ta) for the period 1985 - 2030 and: i) number of specimens sampled in one trap during single sampling period (blue columns); ii) the number of sites invaded by An. hyrcanus (light blue columns); and iii) relative number of positive samplings per year (dark blue columns), (b) projected increase in the number of sites invaded by An. hyrcanus (the period 2001-2030 ±S.E.), and (c) projected increase in the number of the specimens sampled in one trap during single sampling period (2001 - 2030 ±S.E.).

Figure 4: Add WD and HD to the corresponding legend of the graphic. Is there a Croatian sentence in the legend? Please describe how the melanoma incidence was calculated, is the y axis showing incidence or number of cases? Cumulative incidence is known to over-represent trends (see reference: Vandenbroucke & Pearce, 2012, doi: 10.1093/ije/dys142), try to use incidence rate instead.

This is a keystone issue in this field of epidemiology. However, it is still under a broad umbrella of discussion. In particularly mentioned reference (Vandenbroucke & Pearce, 2012) the Authors comprehensively considered the place of incidence rates in dynamic populations as well as the cumulative incidence (risk or portion) from an epistemological point of view and also giving very illustrative (educational) examples. Many authors were arguing with some ideas explicated in this paper, also considering some examples. We agree with V&P ideas, but we did not find the place where they explicitly say that it would always be using the incidence rate instead of cumulative (the question of overestimation). To our understanding, they left the space for a situation when the use of cumulative incidence gives acceptable results. For example, it is partly seen in the paper by Wu et al. (2014). There is another moment why we used cumulative incidence. It is well-known that there is a high correlation between sun exposure (and received cumulated doses of the UV radiation) and melanoma. If that doses (or any climate element) on a daily basis are used from regional climate models, they cannot be directly correlated with daily or monthly measured or calculated biological quantities. The reason for that is the fact that from regional climate models, we can estimate just the trend of the considered physical quantity (in our case -UV doses through their cumulative values). Correspondingly it is correlated with cumulative incidence. Having said that, after the end of the statement in Line 336, we inserted the following text.

The legend in Fig. 4(c) and y-axis in Fig 4 (d) are changed as suggested.

The M&M - Melanoma incidence and UVR was amended by the following text:

L216-221: New text added:

In the analysis we have used two indicators: (i) melanoma incidence rate that is a measure of the number of new cases ("incidence") per unit of time ("rate") and (ii) cumulative incidence (“incidence proportion” that measures the number of new cases per person in the population over a defined period of time – often called risk or proportion). Melanoma incidence rate (per 100,000 people) for ten years 1995 - 2004 was based on the data obtained from the paper by Jovanović et al. [7]. From these data, we calculated the cumulative incidence.

The discussion was also amended by the following text:

L437-441: New text added:

In a cohort study, Wu et al. (2014) considered the impact of long-term UV radiation flux on skin cancer risk. Comparing with participants in the lowest quintile of cumulative UV radiation flux in adulthood, they found that participants in the highest quintile had multivariable-adjusted risks (cumulative incidence). According to Vandenbroucke and Pearce (2012), some studies where cumulative incidence is used can over-represent the trends.

New references included:

Wu S, Han J, Laden F, Qureshi AA. Long-term ultraviolet flux, other potential risk factors, and skin cancer risk: a cohort study. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers and prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2014;23(6):1080–1089.

Vandenbroucke JP, Pearce N. Incidence rates in dynamic populations. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(5):1472–1479.

In table S3 consider adding the number of mosquito samples per site.

Number of samples added in the table.

Figure 6 can be replaced with the statistics of such graphic for readers’ interpretation.

L442-446: Corrections made as suggested. Figure 6 deleted, the paragraph now reads as:

From a statistical point of view, the linear regression model for modelling the cumulative incidence of melanoma versus the difference of the cumulative UVR doses for hot and warm days (Fig 4d) is acceptable. Parameters are statistically highly significant (r = 0.9712 and p = 0.000003) while analysis of residual distribution shows a good agreement with the normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test, W = 0.9608, p = 0.7952).

Authors are justifying the paper under the ‘One Health’ concept, however they are not discussing the idea further. I would like discussing explicitly the benefits of putting together a set of multidisciplinary specialists to the development of the manuscript and how this contribution is part of the one health concept.

The discussion was amended by the following text:

L322-344: New text added:

Despite globalisation trends, researchers have become "closed" in their ever-smaller communication circles which are not limited by state or national borders but by the professional language and way of thinking. Thus, by the end of the 20th century, the scientific community has been faced with problems in communication within its confines. One of the principal reasons why vector-borne diseases (VBD) are so difficult to predict, is the complex interaction of multiple factors (vector, host, pathogen, environment including short-term weather patterns and long-term climate change) in space and time (Moore 2008, Zimmerman 2014). Only groups from multiple sectors that communicate and work together on specific aspects of VBD systems will be able to answer the most exciting and pressing problems in the field (Moore 2008). Authors of this paper started collaboration in 2003 comparing the climates of the foci of WNV circulation in USA (California Central Valley) and Europe (Bucharest area) with VPS. As compared climates showed quite similar patterns, colleagues from public health and veterinary joined the initial group of meteorologists and medical entomologists. With the idea to better draw upon the resources and insights of the various sectors we designed and implemented research and programmes to achieve better outcomes in the control of zoonoses (diseases that can spread between animals and humans, e.g., WNV disease). This led us to the following achievements: (i) the first detection of WNV in horses in Serbia in 2009 (Lupulović 2011); (ii) the first detection of WNV in mosquitoes in Serbia in 2010 (26); (iii) the first detection of WNV in wild birds in Serbia in 2012 (Petrović 2013); (iv) development and implementation of the national programme of WNV surveillance in mosquito, bird and horse population [8], combined with human surveillance in VPS from 2014; (v) increased visibility to ECDC, EFSA and WHO; (vi) the first detection of imported dengue human case in Serbia in 2016 (Petrović 2016); and (vii) development and implementation of “One Health” programme in VPS from 2018. We are quite sure that much less would have been achieved without multidisciplinary communication and collaboration initiated in 2003, and this paper would not have been compiled.

New references included:

Moore CG. Interdisciplinary research in the ecology of vector-borne diseases: Opportunities and needs. Journal of Vector Ecology 2008;33(2):218–224.

Zimmerman B. Engaging with Complexity: Thrive! A Plan for a Healthier Nova Scotia. 2014; [e-print] Available from: https://thrive.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/Thrive-Summit-2014-Brenda-Zimmerman-En.pdf.

Petrić D, Hrnjaković-Cvjetković I, Radovanov J, Cvjetković D, Jerant-Patić V, Milošević V, et al. West Nile virus surveillance in humans and mosquitoes and detection of cell fusing agent virus in Vojvodina Province (Serbia). HealthMED 2012;6(2):462–68.

Lupulović D, Martin-Acebes MA, Lazić S, Alonso-Padilla J, Blazquez AB, Escribano-Romero E, et al. First serological evidence of West Nile virus activity in horses in Serbia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11(9):1303–5.

Petrović T, Blazquez AB, Lupulović D, Lazić G, Escribano-Romero E, Fabijan D, et al. Monitoring West Nile virus (WNV) infection in wild birds in Serbia during 2012: First isolation and characterisation of WNV strains from Serbia. Eurosurveillance. 2013;18(44):1–8.

Petrović V, Turkulov V, Ilić S, Milošević V, Petrović M, Petrić D, et al. First report of imported case of dengue fever in Republic of Serbia. Vol. 14, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2016. p. 60–1

Minor comments:

Please use Oxford comma across the manuscript: e.g., Line 30: ‘the malaria vector, and the incidence of melanoma’.

Corrections made as suggested.

Line 28: Authors never discuss problems related with animal health, thus, I suggest avoiding this kind of affirmations (e.g., line 81).

The reviewer is right, we did not, but we think it is vital to mention animals because WNV is the important zoonotic diseases. Therefore, we would like to include new paragraphs in Introduction and Discussion.

The introduction was amended by the following text:

L76-80: New text added:

In Europe, the total number of reported autochthonous WNV infections in 2018 (n=2,083) exceeded, by far, the total number from the previous seven years (n=1,832). During the same transmission season, outbreaks of West Nile fever among equids increased by 30% compared to the number of outbreaks in 2017. In total, 285 outbreaks among equids were reported by the EU Member States in 2018.

New references included:

Epidemiological update: West Nile virus transmission season in Europe, 2018 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 09]. Available from: https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/epidemiological-update-west-nile-virus-transmission-season-europe-2018

Also, the discussion was amended by following text:

L377-390: New text added:

The WNV transmission cycle involves mosquito vectors and birds, but equines and humans are also susceptible to infection (Kramer et al. 2007, Blitvich 2008). Although WNV infections have been described in a wide variety of vertebrates, birds are the main natural reservoir. Hundreds of wild and domestic avian species have been described as susceptible to WNV infection, but many of these showed only subclinical infection (Komar, 2003). In horses, WNV infection is also frequently clinically unapparent, but around 10% of cases develop neurological disorders with up to 50% mortality rates (Blitvich 2008, Calistri et al. 2010). An increasing number of severe outbreaks in horses have been reported in Europe in the past decade, including a large one that took place in northeast Italy in 2008 involving 251 stables with 794 cases and five deaths (Calistri et al. 2010). From the first detection of WNV in 8 out of 81 found dead wild birds in Serbia (Petrovic et al. 2013), each year WNV nucleic acid was detected in found dead or captured wild birds during summertime (Petrovic et al. 2018). Serological testing of horses sampled during 2009-2010 showed that 12% of 349 horses from the northern part of the Serbia had neutralizing WNV antibodies (Lupulovic et al. 2012). After that, each year horse WNV cases were detected by the positive serological response (IgG and IgM antibody seroconverted horses) (Petrovic et al., 2018) or as a clinical manifestation of West Nile neuroinvasive disease (Medić et al., 2019).

New references included:

Kramer L, Li J, Shi PY. West Nile virus. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:171–181.

Blitvich BJ. Transmission dynamics and changing epidemiology of West Nile virus. Anim Health Res Rev. 2008;9:71–86.

Komar N. West Nile virus: epidemiology and ecology in North America. Adv Vir Res. 2003;6:185–234.

Calistri P, Giovannini A, Hubalek Z, Ionescu A, Monaco F, Savini G et al. Epidemiology of West Nile in Europe and in the Mediterranean basin. Open Virol J. 2010;4(1):29–37.

Medić S, Lazić S, Petrović T, Petrić D, Samojlović M, Lazić G et al. Evidence of the first clinical case of equine neuroinvasive West Nile Disease in Serbia, 2018. Acta veterinaria 2019;69(1):123–130.

Line 28: Methods on the paper should be written in past tense: e.g., COMPARED. Review this in the rest of the manuscript, e.g., line 82.

Corrections made as suggested.

Line 30: ‘the spreading of ONE malaria vector’

L33-34: Corrections made as suggested.

Line 37: ‘Culex.’ should be corrected, only Cx.?

L44: Corrections made as suggested.

Line 40: This is the first time you are mentioning HD, please expand the acronym, review this in the rest of the manuscript, for example EU in line 50, or ENCR in line 78.

Changed as suggested.

L40: of days with Tmax ≥ 30 �C (HD)

L47: Changed to: of days with Tmax ≥ 30 �C (Hot Days - HD)

L50: … endorsed by the EU

L58-59: Changed to: … endorsed by the European Union (EU)

L79: … using ENCR data

L93-94: Changed to: … using European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) data

Line 44: Specify the risk that you are addressing with this research.

Changed as suggested.

L51: New text added: … of vector-borne diseases and melanoma.

Line 54: extra ‘Collected’ after ‘observed data’, please erase.

Changed as suggested, the beginning of the sentence now reads as:

L61: In this paper, the authors collected and analysed observed data over a period

Line 55: Add ‘are’ after the word ‘melanoma’ at the end of the sentence.

L63: Changed as suggested.

Line 58: Here you need a reference for the environmental threat represented for the animal and humans at the Pannonian plane.

L65: References included as suggested.

Line 63: You need a reference for the affirmation of malaria as worldwide detrimental vector-borne disease.

L72: New reference added as suggested.

World Health Organization, World Malaria Report 2018. Geneva: The Organization; 2018.

Line 70: Consider adding a reference of how temperature and relative humidity are principal abiotic factors for WNV and An. hyrcanus.

Not sure how to respond to this comment. However, references concerning the vector-borne disease and mosquito vector mentioned in the sentence are already given in the text - [10,11].

Line 76: Be consistent across the whole manuscript, use either - or – without spaces to separate year timeframes, 1976–2004 is preferred.

Changed as suggested.

Line 102: Add corresponding reference for the Köpen classification.

L128: New reference added as suggested.

Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift. 2006;15(3):259–263.

Line 122: “Data were...”

L148: Changed as suggested.

Line 126: 1985–1986.

L152-153: Changed as suggested.

Line 158: Briefly describe the method of WNV detection, i.e., RT-PCR or the corresponding one before referencing Petrovic et al 2018.

L193-199: New text added:

Mosquito pools were tested for WNV RNA presence by TaqMan-based one-step reverse transcription real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) that amplified both lineage 1 and 2 strains. Viral RNA was extracted using the commercial ISOLATE II RNA Mini Kit (Bioline, The Netherlands) according to the manufacturer's instruction. One-step RT-qPCR was conducted using the commercial kit RNA UltraSense™ One-Step qRT-PCR System (Life Technologies Corporation) with the primers and probe that targeted the nucleocapsid protein C gene regions of WNV, as described by Petrović et al. (2018).

Line 172: Describe the indicators briefly before referencing Jovanovic et al 2009.

According to the suggestion, the text placed between 172-174 lines is replaced by the following one.

L216-221: New text added:

In the analysis we have used two indicators: (i) melanoma incidence rate that is a measure of the number of new cases ("incidence") per unit of time ("rate") and (ii) cumulative incidence (“incidence proportion” that measures the number of new cases per person in the population over a defined period of time – often called risk or proportion). Melanoma incidence rate (per 100,000 people) for ten years 1995 - 2004 was based on the data obtained from the paper by Jovanović et al. [14]. From these data, we calculated the cumulative incidence.

Line 227: Is the formula correct: warm days - WD?

L301-302: Changed to:

air temperature Tmax ≥ 25 �C (Warm Days - WD)

Line 263: Consider changing ‘indicate that the findings supporting’ by ‘support’

L370-374: The sentence was quietly confusing; we rewrote it to read like this:

Positive trends which are present in our observations might indicate that the findings on the negative influence of UVR and blue-light radiation (this radiation has a wavelength between approximately 380 nm and 500 nm; it has a very short wavelength, and so produces a higher amount of energy) on adult mosquitoes under laboratory conditions [38,39] could not be simply translated to the field.

Line 273: Authors are not showing incidence rates, just presence of WNV in mosquitoes.

L396: Changed as suggested. End of sentence now reads as:

… with a higher frequency of WNV presence in mosquitoes.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Mihailovic2019_Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Abdallah M Samy

29 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-16900R1

Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Petrić,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Assessment of climate change impact on malaria vectors, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model" (#PONE-D-19-16900R1) for review by PLOS ONE. As with all papers submitted to the journal, your manuscript was fully evaluated by academic editor (myself) and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important health topic, but they raised substantial concerns about the paper that must be addressed before this manuscript can be accurately assessed for meeting the PLOS ONE criteria. Therefore, if you feel these issues can be adequately addressed, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We can’t, of course, promise publication at that time.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 13 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdallah M. Samy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. 

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A part from the last single remark made, that the authors should consider, all my comments have been addressed. From my perspective, this paper is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: Authors present a corrected version of their manuscript. In reference to my suggestions, the majority of them have been addressed appropriately. Some comments among their current version:

The authors have included a measure of uncertainty based on the results of the ENSEMBLES project, that is, based on an extrinsic source of climatic model uncertainty. This is potentially valid, but please be explicit on your approach, that is, discuss the absence of experimentation with other climatic scenarios (e.g., SRES A2, B1, etc) and the decision to not use other climatic models apart from EBU-POM.

In the amended paragraph from lines 345-352, it is not clear if the EBU-POM model integration to 0.75ºC refers to the temperatures for 2001-2030 or 1961-1990, please improve the wording and punctuation.

In the amended paragraph from lines 229-249, please explain clearly the sentence ‘but with the reliability which is in the interval values allowed by the information measures’. Consider either quantitatively adding the values you are referring to, or define reliability and how a simple simulated model is preferred over complex models in order to explain the observed phenomena.

Other comments:

Line 120: Please add a reference to back up your ‘affirmation’ of RCP scenarios without any storyline behind them.

Line 150: Add a comma after ‘In all years,’

Lines 186-187: ‘relative humidity’ should be another item, i.e. (iv), you are treating it like that in the results.

Line 188: Separate ‘2010 to’

Line 219: Please include here the reference of “Vandenbroucke JP, Pearce N. Incidence rates in dynamic populations. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(5):1472–1479. “

Line 219: I would suggest also separating periods of time using the ‘en dash’ that is: 2004–2005 instead of 2004-2005. This should be reviewed in the overall paper for consistency, there are places where you indeed use this but then you use a different format (e.g., line 227).

Lines 224-226: I will strongly recommend authors moving the ‘Empirical Formula’ section to this section of the manuscript. It feels natural to introduce both the terminology and the corresponding formulas in the section discussing melanoma; currently the formula is between the description of the regional model and the environmental sampling of mosquitos, which is off topic for that section. Also, here you are introducing another formula derived from the previous one, which will benefit being close together in your narrative.

Line 230: KC spectrum should be in square brackets, is an abbreviation-like expression that you are using inside a parenthesis.

Line 282: Add the word statistically: ‘Toa, which is statistically significant’

Line 283: Please be consistent in the way you define your variables across the manuscript. Sometimes you call overwintering temperature as Toa, others ToA, others you use sub indices, others you use the full letters. Same for the thousands, sometimes you separate them with ',' others no comma is used (e.g., 10,000 vs 10000).

Line 315: Change the wording, ‘mosquito vectors’ to An. hyrcanus, you are not referencing to other vectors in the paper.

Line 326: Add comma after the word ‘predict’.

Line 386-387: Improve the wording; the word ‘found’ should be after the noun. For example: ‘…in 8 out of 81 dead wild birds found in Serbia […]. Each year WNV nucleic acid was detected in dead or captured wild birds found during summer time’. This second ‘found’ could even be eliminated.

Line 398: How did you center the ellipsoids for Fig5? You should describe this either on the main text or on the legend of the figure. From the current version, apparently the ellipsoids were developed considering a cluster of human cases right? This is not clear.

Line 405: Use the word ‘means’ instead of ‘mean’.

Fig 1B: Please consider changing the color ramp of the altitude of the study region, green-red is not color-blind friendly.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Koffi Mensah Ahadji-Dabla

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-16900_R1_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0227679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227679.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Nov 2019

Dear Dr Samy,

We are pleased to submit the revised version of “Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model” (#PONE-D-19-16900R2). We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and advisors in reviewing the manuscript. Please find below detailed responses to the reviewers, whom we thank for their careful consideration of the manuscript. We also reviewed the manuscript for any additional errors and made small changes that are tracked in the attached document (“Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”).

Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: Apart from the last single remark made, that the authors should consider, all my comments have been addressed. From my perspective, this paper is acceptable for publication.

Corrected, Line 361in the file “Manuscript_R2”: “… expectedthe intensity ...”replaced by “… expected, the intensity ...”

Reviewer #2: Authors present a corrected version of their manuscript. In reference to my suggestions, the majority of them have been addressed appropriately. Some comments among their current version:

The authors have included a measure of uncertainty based on the results of the ENSEMBLES project, that is, based on an extrinsic source of climatic model uncertainty. This is potentially valid, but please be explicit on your approach, that is, discuss the absence of experimentation with other climatic scenarios (e.g., SRES A2, B1, etc) and the decision to not use other climatic models apart from EBU-POM.

In the amended paragraph from lines 345-352, it is not clear if the EBU-POM model integration to 0.75ºC refers to the temperatures for 2001-2030 or 1961-1990, please improve the wording and punctuation.

Response:

Current version: For the period 2001-2030 the temperature change for the region of interest in the EBU-POM integration is 0.75 �C concerning the period 1961-1990 and for the same period ENSEMBLES MME spread range is 0.5-1.5 �C [43]. Following this finding, other results presented in this paper that relay on temperature change, can be seen as an estimate that will be within uncertainty related to the future temperature projection.

New version: For the region of interest, temperature change for the period 2001-2030 with respect to the period 1961-1990, in the EBU-POM integration is 0.75 �C and in the case of ENSEMBLES MME spread range is 0.5-1.5 �C [43]. Furthermore, over period 2001-2030, uncertainty in temperature projections, related to the scenarios is just small fraction of total uncertainty (Hawkins and Sutton, 2009), due to the fact that there is no significant difference in greenhouse gases concentrations for different SRES scenarios. Consequently, it can be considered that for the period 2001-2030, in case of other scenarios, the estimated range will be similar. Following this findings, even that selection of single model and single scenario does not allow estimate of the full uncertainty in the future, presented results that relay on temperature change, can be seen as plausible future realisation within total uncertainty range, and realistic response of the complex system for further increase in temperature as a forcing driver.

Hawkins E, Sutton R. The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional Climate Predictions. Bull Amer Meteor. 2009; 90(8): 1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009bams2607.1

Also, we included the following sentence at the end of the discussion:

In the future studies, it will be beneficial to introduce results of other regional climate models, such as multi-model ensemble from the CORDEX framework, as a need for better understanding of different uncertainties in the results.

In the amended paragraph from lines 229-249, please explain clearly the sentence ‘but with the reliability which is in the interval values allowed by the information measures’. Consider either quantitatively adding the values you are referring to, or define reliability and how a simple simulated model is preferred over complex models in order to explain the observed phenomena.

Response:

Current version: We considered the papers by Mihailović et al. [2, 28] in which Kolmogorov complexity measures (Kolmogorov complexity (KC), Kolmogorov complexity spectrum KC spectrum) and the highest value of the KC spectrum (KCM)) and sample entropy (SE) [29] were used to quantify the regularity and complexity of air temperature and precipitation time series, obtained by the EBU-POM model, representing both deterministic chaos and stochastic processes. We considered the complexity of the EBU-POM model using the observed and modelled time series of temperature and precipitation. We computed the KC spectrum, KC, KCM and SE values for temperature and precipitation. The calculations were performed for the entire time interval 1961–1990: (i) on a daily basis with a size of N =10958 samples for temperature and (ii) on a monthly basis with a size N =360 for the precipitation. The simulated time series of temperature and precipitation were obtained by the EBU-POM model for the given period. The observed time series of temperature and precipitations for two stations: Sombor (SO) (88 m.a.s.l.) and Novi Sad (NS) (84 m.a.s.l.) in the considered area, were taken from daily meteorological reports of the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia. For both sites, the modelled complexity is lower than the observed one, but with the reliability which is in the interval values allowed by the information measures (KC, KCM, and SE) [30, 31,32]. These findings mean that the models with a KC (and KCM) complexity lower than the measured time series complexity cannot always reconstruct some of the structures contained in the observed data. However, it does not mean that outputs from EBU-POM model do not correctly simulate climate elements since both sites values indicate the absence of stochastic influences, providing reliable projections of the climate elements.

New version: We considered the papers by Mihailović et al. [2, 28] in which Kolmogorov complexity measures [Kolmogorov complexity (KC), Kolmogorov complexity spectrum (KC spectrum), and the highest value of the KC spectrum (KCM)], and sample entropy (SE) [29] were used to quantify the regularity and complexity of air temperature and precipitation time series, obtained by the EBU-POM model, representing both deterministic chaos and stochastic processes. We considered the complexity of the EBU-POM model using the observed and modelled time series of temperature and precipitation. We computed the KC spectrum, KC, KCM and SE values for temperature and precipitation. The calculations were performed for the entire time interval 1961–1990: (i) on a daily basis with a size of N =10958 samples for temperature and (ii) on a monthly basis with a size N =360 for the precipitation. The simulated time series of temperature and precipitation were obtained by the EBU-POM model for the given period. The observed time series of temperature and precipitations for two stations: Sombor (SO) (88 m.a.s.l.) and Novi Sad (NS) (84 m.a.s.l.) in the considered area, were taken from daily meteorological reports of the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia. For both sites, the modelled complexity is lower than the observed one, but with the reliability which is in the interval values allowed by the information measures (KC, KCM, and SE) [30, 31, 32]. The term model reliability we have used in the following context. The Lyapunov exponent (LLE) relates to the predictability of measured time series, which includes deterministic chaos as an inherent component. Model predictability is here understood as the degree to which a correct prediction of a system's state can be made either qualitatively or quantitatively. In a stochastic analysis, a random process is considered predictable if it is possible to infer the next state from previous observations. In many models, however, randomness is a phenomenon which “spoils” predictability (Mihailović, 2019). Deterministic chaos does not mechanically denote total predictability but means that at least it improves the prognostic power. In contrast, stochastic trajectories cannot be projected into the future. If LLE>1 then time series is not chaotic, but is rather stochastic, and predictions cannot be based on chaos theory. However, if 0<LLE<1 it indicatesthe existence of chaos in time series. In that case, one can compute the approximate time (often called Lyapunov time (LT)) limit for which accurate prediction for a chaotic system is a function of LLE. It designates a period when a specific process (physical, mechanical, hydrological, quantum, or even biological) moves beyond the bounds of precise (or probabilistic) predictability and enters a chaotic mode. According to (Frison and Abarbanel (1997) that time can be calculated as LLE Δt_lyap=1/LLE. If LLE→0, implying that Δt_lyap→∞, then long-term accurate predictions are possible. However, many climate time series are highly complex. Therefore, 〖∆t〗_lyapcan be corrected for randomness in the following way. Similar to 〖∆t〗_lyap we can introduce a randomness time 〖∆t〗_rand=1/KC(in time units, second, hour or day). Henceforth, we shall denote this quantity Kolmogorov time (KT), as it quantifies the period beyond which randomness significantly influences predictability. Then, the Lyapunov time corrected for randomness is defined as[〖0,∆t〗_lyap ]∩[〖0,∆t〗_rand ]. It can be stated that the KT designates the size of the time window within time series where complexity remains nearly unchanged. These findings mean that the models with a KC (and KCM) complexity lower than the measured time series complexity cannot always reconstruct some of the structures contained in the observed data. However, it does not mean that outputs from EBU-POM model do not correctly simulate climate elements since both sites values indicate the absence of stochastic influences, providing reliable projections of the climate elements.

Mihailović DT, Nikolić-Đorić E, Malinović-Milićević S, Singh VP, Mihailović A, Stošić T et al. The Choice of an Appropriate Information Dissimilarity Measure for Hierarchical Clustering of River Streamflow Time Series, Based on Calculated Lyapunov Exponent and Kolmogorov Measures. Entropy. 2019; 21: 215.

Frison TW, Abarbanel HDI. Ocean gravity waves: A nonlinear analysis of observations. Geophys Res. 1997; 102(C1): 1051–1059. DOI:10.1029/96JC02993.

Other comments:

Line 120: Please add a reference to back up your ‘affirmation’ of RCP scenarios without any storyline behind them.

Response:

Current version: In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is introduced, which are possible future concentration pathways without any storyline behind them.

New version: In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is introduced, which are possible future concentration pathways without any storyline behind them (Moss et al., 2008).

Moss R, Babiker M, Brinkman S, Calvo E, Carter T, Edmonds J et al. Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts, and response strategies. IPCC Expert Meeting Report on New Scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. 2008. pp. 1–132

Line 150: Add a comma after ‘In all years,’

Changed as suggested.

Lines 186-187: ‘relative humidity’ should be another item, i.e. (iv), you are treating it like that in the results.

Changed as suggested.

Line 188: Separate ‘2010 to’

Changed as suggested.

Line 219: Please include here the reference of “Vandenbroucke JP, Pearce N. Incidence rates in dynamic populations. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(5):1472–1479. “

Changed as suggested.

Line 219: I would suggest also separating periods of time using the ‘en dash’ that is: 2004–2005 instead of 2004-2005. This should be reviewed in the overall paper for consistency, there are places where you indeed use this but then you use a different format (e.g., line 227).

Changed as suggested.

Lines 224-226: I will strongly recommend authors moving the ‘Empirical Formula’ section to this section of the manuscript. It feels natural to introduce both the terminology and the corresponding formulas in the section discussing melanoma; currently the formula is between the description of the regional model and the environmental sampling of mosquitos, which is off topic for that section. Also, here you are introducing another formula derived from the previous one, which will benefit being close together in your narrative.

The subtitle “Empiricakl Formula” is erased, the text removed and inserted after “... (Bantaski Karlovac), and BG (Beograd)].”within the section Melanoma Incidence.

Line 230: KC spectrum should be in square brackets, is an abbreviation-like expression that you are using inside a parenthesis.

Response:

Current version: ... in which Kolmogorov complexity measures (Kolmogorov complexity (KC), Kolmogorov complexity spectrum KC spectrum) and the highest value of the KC spectrum (KCM)) and sample ...

New version: ... in which Kolmogorov complexity measures [Kolmogorov complexity (KC), Kolmogorov complexity spectrum (KC spectrum), and the highest value of the KC spectrum (KCM)], and sample ...

Line 282: Add the word statistically: ‘Toa, which is statistically significant’

Changed as suggested.

Line 283: Please be consistent in the way you define your variables across the manuscript. Sometimes you call overwintering temperature as Toa, others ToA, others you use sub indices, others you use the full letters. Same for the thousands, sometimes you separate them with ',' others no comma is used (e.g., 10,000 vs 10000).

Changed as suggested.

Line 315: Change the wording, ‘mosquito vectors’ to An. hyrcanus, you are not referencing to other vectors in the paper.

Here we refer also to Culex pipiens. The sentence remained as it is.

Line 326: Add comma after the word ‘predict’.

Changed as suggested.

Line 386-387: Improve the wording; the word ‘found’ should be after the noun. For example: ‘…in 8 out of 81 dead wild birds found in Serbia […]. Each year WNV nucleic acid was detected in dead or captured wild birds found during summer time’. This second ‘found’ could even be eliminated.

Response:

Current version: From the first detection of WNV in 8 out of 81 found dead wild birds in Serbia [40], each year WNV nucleic acid was detected in found dead or captured wild birds during summertime [8].

New version: From the first detection of WNV in 8 out of 81 dead wild birds found in Serbia [40], each year WNV nucleic acid was detected in dead or captured wild birds during summertime [8].

Line 398: How did you center the ellipsoids for Fig5? You should describe this either on the main text or on the legend of the figure. From the current version, apparently the ellipsoids were developed considering a cluster of human cases right? This is not clear.

The figure caption was adapted as suggested:

Current version: Fig 5. Frequency of sampling of WNV infected mosquitoes (1–5 times, coloured numbers) during the period 2010–2016, superimposed over a cluster of mosquito, bird, horse, and human WNV cases in (a) 2014 and (b) 2015 (modified after Petrić et al. [9]).

New version: Fig 5. Frequency of sampling of WNV infected mosquitoes (1–5 times, coloured numbers) during the period 2010–2016, superimposed over a cluster of mosquito, bird, horse, and human WNV cases in (a) 2014 and (b) 2015. The standard deviation ellipse (1-σ) is centered around the mean coordinates of the total number of mosquito, bird, horse and human WNV cases (modified after Petrić et al. [9]).

Line 405: Use the word ‘means’ instead of ‘mean’.

Changed as suggested.

Fig 1B: Please consider changing the color ramp of the altitude of the study region, green-red is not color-blind friendly.

Adapted.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Mihailovic2019_Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Abdallah M Samy

6 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-16900R2

Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Petrić,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Assessment of climate change impact on malaria vectors, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model" (#PONE-D-19-16900R2) for review by PLOS ONE. As with all papers submitted to the journal, your manuscript was fully evaluated by academic editor (myself) and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important health topic, but they raised substantial concerns about the paper that must be addressed before this manuscript can be accurately assessed for meeting the PLOS ONE criteria. Therefore, if you feel these issues can be adequately addressed, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We can’t, of course, promise publication at that time.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdallah M. Samy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I think we gave the authors several opportunities to address the reviewer comments; this is the third revision. We need to address some more comments before considering a decision on this manuscript. Please consider carefully all comments. Thanks!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the most worrisome comments. A couple of minor changes are suggested:

Line 35: separate ’10years’

Line 56: add a space after ‘World Health Organization’

Line 66: to say that West Nile virus is one of the most detrimental vector borne diseases worldwide is debatable, potentially, dengue is far more detrimental worldwide. On the contrary, malaria is the most detrimental vector borne disease worldwide. Modify accordingly.

Line 110: ‘…the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are introduced, which are…’, use the plural form.

Line 161: add a space in ‘Figs2a’

Line 193: space in ‘Fig3’

Line 211: add a comma after ’sites’

Line 213: Change ‘Firstly’ for ‘First’

Line 226-227: Change ’N’ for ’n’ to describe sample size as done previously in the manuscript

Line 262: use the plural form ‘trends’

Lines 291-258: I appreciate the clear explanation of the authors for this part of the manuscript. However, I reviewed previous reviews and noticed that although now all the explanation is clear, no results are presented. Is clear that the authors are comparing EBU-POM model vs. the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia, but what is the conclusion? Is the model reliable? To use their own terminology: what are the results for all their comparisons: LLE Δtlyap = 1/LLE?, ∆trand = 1/KC?, what is the intersection between 0,Δtlyap and 0,∆trand?. Another way to show this information would be: can the EBU-POM model be described by a deterministic chaotic equation? if so, is this demonstrated by this comparison? How all this is related to the overall manuscript. Does this means that that the regional model can be trusted? All these points are raised between these lines and never discussed again.

Line 362: Anopheles has already been written, change to “An. maculipennis”

Lines 457-459: Please add these lines after the corresponding discussion of environmental models in the discussion section (that is, after line 348).

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0227679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227679.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


20 Dec 2019

Journal: PLOS ONE

Manuscript#: PONE-D-19-16900R3

Title of paper: Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

Dragutin T. Mihailović1, Dušan Petrić2*, Tamaš Petrović3, Ivana Hrnjaković-Cvjetković4,5, Vladimir Djurdjevic6, Emilija Nikolić-Đorić7, Ilija Arsenić1, Mina Petrić8,9,10*, Gordan Mimić11, Aleksandra Ignjatović-Ćupina2

Dear Dr Samy,

We are pleased to submit the revised version of “Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model” (#PONE-D-19-16900R3). We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and advisors in reviewing the manuscript. Please find below detailed responses to the reviewers, whom we thank for their careful consideration of the manuscript. We also reviewed the manuscript for any additional errors and made small changes that are tracked in the attached document (“Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”).

Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #2:

Line 35: separate ’10years’ Corrected

Line 56: add a space after ‘World Health Organization’ Corrected

Line 66: to say that West Nile virus is one of the most detrimental vector borne diseases worldwide is debatable, potentially, dengue is far more detrimental worldwide. On the contrary, malaria is the most detrimental vector borne disease worldwide. Modify accordingly.

Response:

Our intention was to say that West Nile virus disease is one of the most detrimental vector-borne diseases worldwide, but construction of the sentence might indicate to the reader that malaria is the first and WNV disease the second most important.

The text was adapted accordingly. … are vectors of malaria and West Nile virus (WNV) disease, respectively, the two vector-borne diseases distributed worldwide [10,11].

Line 110: ‘…the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are introduced, which are…’, use the plural form. Corrected

Line 161 (158): add a space in ‘Figs2a’ Corrected

Line 193 (189): space in ‘Fig3’ Corrected

Line 211 (208): add a comma after ’sites’ Corrected

Line 213 (210): Change ‘Firstly’ for ‘First’ Corrected

Line 226-227 (223-224): Change ’N’ for ’n’ to describe sample size as done previously in the manuscript Corrected

Line 262 (261: use the plural form ‘trends’ Corrected

Reviewer #2: Lines 291-258: I appreciate the clear explanation of the authors for this part of the manuscript. However, I reviewed previous reviews and noticed that although now all the explanation is clear, no results are presented. Is clear that the authors are comparing EBU-POM model vs. the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia, but what is the conclusion? Is the model reliable? To use their own terminology: what are the results for all their comparisons: LLE Δtlyap = 1/LLE?, ∆trand = 1/KC?, what is the intersection between 0,Δtlyap and 0,∆trand?. Another way to show this information would be: can the EBU-POM model be described by a deterministic chaotic equation? if so, is this demonstrated by this comparison? How all this is related to the overall manuscript. Does this means that that the regional model can be trusted? All these points are raised between these lines and never discussed again.

Response:

Thanks a lot for your remarks. They point out on your minutious and patient reading the manuscript. Today, it is rare to find such a collegial and professional trait. After careful reading your comments and also ones from the first round of the reviewing process, I have an impression that “we are (you as the reviewer and I as one of the authors) on the same line having a disconnection just in one point”. It seems that our additional text inserted in the manuscript, can make an impression on the reader which is sublimated in the dictum: “she/he cannot see the forest for the trees”. Maybe, partly you are right since your remark is quite “practical”, while my elaboration is more “theoretical” without clearly emphasizing the touch down. I have tried to connect our half-lines in the aforementioned point.

Reviewer #2: However, I reviewed previous reviews and noticed that although now all the explanation is clear, no results are presented. Is clear that the authors are comparing EBU-POM model vs. the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia, but what is the conclusion?

Response:

You are right. After this text an additional conclusive statement is needed. In the revised version it is done in the following way: after the last statement in the text (line 258) we inserted the following text (Lines 255-257): “Therefore, the EBU-POM model can be considered as a model having high performances and reliability in projection of temperature and participation, two of the most important elements used in different climate research.”

Reviewer #2: Is the model reliable? To use their own terminology: what are the results for all their comparisons: LLE Δtlyap = 1/LLE?, ∆trand = 1/KC?, what is the intersection between 0,Δtlyap and 0,∆trand?. Another way to show this information would be: can the EBU-POM model be described by a deterministic chaotic equation? If so, is this demonstrated by this comparison? How all this is related to the overall manuscript.

Now we see where a potential source of misunderstanding, which is partly introduced by our omitting a conclusive text about EBU-POM model performances (that is done in the revised version). It was your question about meaning of the term - model reliability in the previous reviewing report. To explain that we inserted the text about Lyapunov and Kolmogorov times as the indicators of the model reliability. Certainly, that EBU-POM model equations satisfy conditions that come from LT and KT, i.e. cannot “take away” system into chaos. Therefore, no necessary tests in this paper are needed. More details about this issue can be found in Mihailović et al. (2014) which is included in the text (Line 255) and the reference list.

Mihailovic DT, Mimic G, Arsenic I. Climate predictions: the chaos and complexity in climate models, Advances in Meteorology. 2014; DOI: 10.1155/2014/878249.

Reviewer #2: Does this means that that the regional model can be trusted? All these points are raised between these lines and never discussed again.

Response:

Certainly, that the EBU-POM model is trustable. Moreover, it can be included in the group of frequently used models.

New version: We considered the papers by Mihailović et al. [2,30] in which Kolmogorov complexity measures [Kolmogorov complexity (KC), Kolmogorov complexity spectrum (KC spectrum), and the highest value of the KC spectrum (KCM)], and sample entropy (SE) [31] were used to quantify the regularity and complexity of air temperature and precipitation time series, obtained by the EBU-POM model, representing both deterministic chaos and stochastic processes. We considered the complexity of the EBU-POM model using the observed and modelled time series of temperature and precipitation. We computed the KC spectrum, KC, KCM and SE values for temperature and precipitation. The calculations were performed for the entire time interval 1961–1990: (i) on a daily basis with a size of n=10,958 samples for temperature and (ii) on a monthly basis with a size N=360 for the precipitation. The simulated time series of temperature and precipitation were obtained by the EBU-POM model for the given period. The observed time series of temperature and precipitations for two stations: Sombor (SO) (88 m.a.s.l.) and Novi Sad (NS) (84 m.a.s.l.) in the considered area, were taken from daily meteorological reports of the Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia. For both sites, the modelled complexity is lower than the observed one, but with the reliability which is in the interval values allowed by the information measures (KC, KCM, and SE) [32,33,34]. The term model reliability we have used in the following context. The Lyapunov exponent (LLE) relates to the predictability of measured time series, which includes deterministic chaos as an inherent component. Model predictability is here understood as the degree to which a correct prediction of a system's state can be made either qualitatively or quantitatively. In a stochastic analysis, a random process is considered predictable if it is possible to infer the next state from previous observations. In many models, however, randomness is a phenomenon which “spoils” predictability [35]. Deterministic chaos does not mechanically denote total predictability but means that at least it improves the prognostic power. In contrast, stochastic trajectories cannot be projected into the future. If LLE>1 then time series is not chaotic, but is rather stochastic, and predictions cannot be based on chaos theory. However, if 0<LLE<1 it indicates the existence of chaos in time series. In that case, one can compute the approximate time [often called Lyapunov time (LT)] limit for which accurate prediction for a chaotic system is a function of LLE. It designates a period when a specific process (physical, mechanical, hydrological, quantum, or even biological) moves beyond the bounds of precise (or probabilistic) predictability and enters a chaotic mode. According to Frison and Abarbanel [36] that time can be calculated as LLE Δt_lyap=1/LLE. If LLE→0, implying that Δt_lyap→∞, then long-term accurate predictions are possible. However, many climate time series are highly complex. Therefore, 〖∆t〗_lyap can be corrected for randomness in the following way. Similar to 〖∆t〗_lyap we can introduce a randomness time 〖∆t〗_rand=1/KC (in time units, second, hour or day). Henceforth, we shall denote this quantity Kolmogorov time (KT), as it quantifies the period beyond which randomness significantly influences predictability. Then, the Lyapunov time corrected for randomness is defined as [〖0,∆t〗_lyap ]∩[〖0,∆t〗_rand ]. It can be stated that the KT designates the size of the time window within time series where complexity remains nearly unchanged. These findings mean that the models with a KC (and KCM) complexity lower than the measured time series complexity cannot always reconstruct some of the structures contained in the observed data. However, it does not mean that outputs from EBU-POM model do not correctly simulate climate elements since both sites’ values indicate the absence of stochastic influences, providing reliable projections of the climate elements (37 -Mihailovic et al. 2014). Therefore, the EBU-POM model can be considered as a model having high performances and reliability in projection of temperature and precipitation, two of the most important elements used in different climate research.

Line 362: Anopheles has already been written, change to “An. maculipennis” Corrected

Lines 457-459: Please add these lines after the corresponding discussion of environmental models in the discussion section (that is, after line 348). Corrected

Attachment

Submitted filename: Mihailovic2019_Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 3

Abdallah M Samy

27 Dec 2019

Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

PONE-D-19-16900R3

Dear Dr. Petrić,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Abdallah M. Samy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Abdallah M Samy

30 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-16900R3

Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model

Dear Dr. Petrić:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abdallah M. Samy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Overview of dry-ice trap samples sizes.

    For each year, the number of locations sampled, the number of location re-sampled, and total number of samples are presented. Exposure time at the trap locations was similar (14 ± 2h).

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Number of the total trap nights, positive trap nights and Anopheles hyrcanus specimens sampled at 54 selected sites in the Vojvodina Province, Serbia during the years 1985–86, 2004–5 and 2014–15.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Frequency of sampling of WNV infected mosquitoes (1–5 times) in the Vojvodina Province, Serbia, during the period 2010–2016.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments on PONE-D-19-16900.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-16900_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Mihailovic2019_Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-16900_R1_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Mihailovic2019_Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Mihailovic2019_Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES