Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2021 Jun 23;17(6):e1009637. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009637

A field test of the dilution effect hypothesis in four avian multi-host pathogens

Martina Ferraguti 1,¤a, Josué Martínez-de la Puente 1,2,¤b, Miguel Ángel Jiménez–Clavero 2,3, Francisco Llorente 3, David Roiz 1,¤c, Santiago Ruiz 2,4, Ramón Soriguer 2,5, Jordi Figuerola 1,2,*
Editor: Fernando Garcia-Arenal6
PMCID: PMC8221496  PMID: 34161394

Abstract

The Dilution Effect Hypothesis (DEH) argues that greater biodiversity lowers the risk of disease and reduces the rates of pathogen transmission since more diverse communities harbour fewer competent hosts for any given pathogen, thereby reducing host exposure to the pathogen. DEH is expected to operate most intensely in vector-borne pathogens and when species-rich communities are not associated with increased host density. Overall, dilution will occur if greater species diversity leads to a lower contact rate between infected vectors and susceptible hosts, and between infected hosts and susceptible vectors. Field-based tests simultaneously analysing the prevalence of several multi-host pathogens in relation to host and vector diversity are required to validate DEH. We tested the relationship between the prevalence in house sparrows (Passer domesticus) of four vector-borne pathogens–three avian haemosporidians (including the avian malaria parasite Plasmodium and the malaria-like parasites Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon) and West Nile virus (WNV)–and vertebrate diversity. Birds were sampled at 45 localities in SW Spain for which extensive data on vector (mosquitoes) and vertebrate communities exist. Vertebrate censuses were conducted to quantify avian and mammal density, species richness and evenness. Contrary to the predictions of DEH, WNV seroprevalence and haemosporidian prevalence were not negatively associated with either vertebrate species richness or evenness. Indeed, the opposite pattern was found, with positive relationships between avian species richness and WNV seroprevalence, and Leucocytozoon prevalence being detected. When vector (mosquito) richness and evenness were incorporated into the models, all the previous associations between WNV prevalence and the vertebrate community variables remained unchanged. No significant association was found for Plasmodium prevalence and vertebrate community variables in any of the models tested. Despite the studied system having several characteristics that should favour the dilution effect (i.e., vector-borne pathogens, an area where vector and host densities are unrelated, and where host richness is not associated with an increase in host density), none of the relationships between host species diversity and species richness, and pathogen prevalence supported DEH and, in fact, amplification was found for three of the four pathogens tested. Consequently, the range of pathogens and communities studied needs to be broadened if we are to understand the ecological factors that favour dilution and how often these conditions occur in nature.

Author’s summary

The Dilution Effect Hypothesis (DEH) postulates that biodiversity can reduce disease epidemics because more diverse communities harbour a lower fraction of competent hosts, which thus reduces pathogen prevalence. Here, we tested DEH by using field information from 45 populations in SW Spain on the prevalence of four vector-borne pathogens and considered both the potential role of the vertebrate community and mosquito vectors. We determined the prevalence of Plasmodium, Haemoproteus, Leucocytozoon and antibodies for the zoonotic West Nile virus in wild house sparrows. Contrary to the predictions of DEH, our results do not support the general protective ability of biodiversity to reduce the prevalence of these four pathogens.

Introduction

The number of emerging infectious diseases affecting humans is currently increasing [1] and approximately 75% of such diseases are known to be of zoonotic origin [2]. Many are caused by vector-borne pathogens that potentially have detrimental effects on human populations and cause serious concerns for public health [3]. The magnitude of this problem became apparent when the reported number of vector-borne diseases in the period 2004–2016 in the United States doubled [4]. The Dilution Effect Hypothesis (DEH) argues that biodiversity is related to reduced pathogen prevalence because species-rich communities harbour a lower fraction of competent hosts (i.e., individuals in which the pathogen can multiply to sufficient levels to pass the infection onto a new susceptible individual), which thus reduces pathogen transmission success and, consequently, pathogen prevalence [5,6]. In the case of vector-borne pathogens, in more diverse communities a higher fraction of vector bites is expected to occur on non-competent hosts that ‘dilute’ the pathogens in the community, thereby reducing both pathogen prevalence in vectors and the number of susceptible hosts [7]. However, theoretical models suggest that both negative (dilution) and positive (amplification) relationships between pathogen prevalence and biodiversity occur [8,9] and, indeed, both phenomena have been observed in wild populations. For example, the dilution effect was reported by Swaddle et al. [10], who noted a lower incidence of West Nile virus (WNV) in humans in US counties with richer avian (i.e., the vertebrate reservoirs of the virus) communities. Conversely, an amplification effect was reported by Roiz et al. [11] in a study in SW Spain, where a higher prevalence of Usutu virus was found in areas with richer avian communities and, in particular, in areas with more passerine species. Given its implications for public health, the validity and generality of the relationship between biodiversity and pathogen prevalence suggested by DEH has been the focus of intense research efforts in recent years [8,12,13]. As support for DEH, negative relationships between host species richness and pathogen prevalence have been reported in several pathogens transmitted by ticks (e.g., Lyme disease [14,15]), mosquitoes (e.g., WNV [10]) and rodents (e.g., hantavirus [16]). However, isolating the effects of host community composition or of the presence of a highly competent species for the pathogen in question is difficult [12,17]. In one example, Kilpatrick et al. [18] demonstrated that American robins (Turdus migratorius) were responsible for most WNV-infectious mosquitoes and as such acted as super-spreaders. Indeed, in most of these previous studies, pathogen prevalence was related to species richness (i.e., the number of different species in the area) rather than species diversity, which takes into account the relative proportion of the different species present in the area (e.g., Shannon, Simpson or other evenness indices). The relationship between species richness and/or diversity and pathogen prevalence may be due either to the presence of key species or to the identity of the species included in the community and its density, rather than to any intrinsic property of biodiversity [19]. As well, sample bias between locations can influence the estimation of richness, an issue that could be solved by controlling for differences in the number of individuals and the number of samples collected (i.e., using rarefaction approaches) [20]. Additionally, Johnson et al. [21] proposed that dilution should be more evident at local scales but weaker at larger scales, since biotic interactions occur locally while abiotic factors tend to dominate at larger scales (see also [22]). Fundamentally, DEH occurs in association with an increase in species diversity leading to a decrease in the relative density of susceptible host density, thereby reducing contact rates between pathogen vectors and susceptible hosts in the case of vector-borne pathogens. By contrast, amplification can occur when increased diversity leads to the opposite phenomenon [23]. In addition, various authors have also suggested that more diverse host communities may harbour a higher number of host individuals, which could help vectors proliferate and, eventually, could increase pathogen transmission, thereby neutralizing any potential dilution effect [12]. However, the density of vectors and their distributions are traditionally linked to landscape and climate [24], and the relevance of host abundance and distribution to the distribution and abundance of vectors remains poorly known [12]. Recently, Rohr et al. [25] evaluated the conditions that facilitate a negative relationship between biodiversity and pathogen transmission. These authors concluded that the dilution effect is more likely to occur in vector-borne pathogens and will be largely influenced by community assembly rules. In particular, dilution effects may be expected to occur more often when the community assembly is substitutive as opposed to additive. In the latter case, the increase in the number of species is associated with increases in host densities since the individuals of the new species are simply added to those of the species that are already present. When community assembly is substitutive, however, an increase in species richness does not translate into an increase in the number of hosts. Nevertheless, only a few studies have ever tested all these relationships under natural conditions and consequently empirical tests are still urgently required [12]. Unfortunately, no detailed information is available on the host competence of the avian species present in southern Spain. Consequently, it is not possible to analyse how community competence varies within the assemblage, although it is possible to analyse whether or not vector and vertebrate community richness and density fit better in additive or substitutive assemblage models.

Civitello et al. [26] undertook a meta-analysis that found support for DEH in a wide range of host-parasite systems including pathogens with different transmission pathways, lifecycles, and host ranges, in both parasites that affect humans and others that only infect wildlife. Nevertheless, this meta-analysis has been criticized because it did not consider the negative publication bias; many of the studies included in this review were performed under simplified laboratory conditions in which individuals of a competent and a non-competent species were combined in an artificial mesocosm, which raises doubts about the validity of their conclusions when applied to multi host-pathogen systems [27]. A similar meta-analysis based on field studies of public-health-relevant pathogens failed to find support for the dilution effect [28]. Given such a variety of outcomes, a potentially reliable approach for testing DEH could come from studying pathogens circulating in a single ecosystem, which would assist in accurately separating effects derived from biodiversity from those originating due to differences in host and vector community composition [8]. Vector diversity has been traditionally ignored in most of the studies focusing on DEH, although such information is essential for validating this hypothesis given that pathogen incidence is largely determined by vector distribution [12,29]. Indeed, Roche et al. [29] elaborated a multi-species Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered transmission model and concluded that increased vertebrate host-species richness decreased WNV transmission, while vector species-richness increased pathogen transmission. This model was built on the assumptions that in both vertebrate and vector communities the most abundant host reservoirs and vectors had the highest susceptibility for pathogen transmission. In other words, species rich communities are created by adding individuals of non-susceptible hosts or vector species to species poor communities, thereby hindering the spread of transmission.

Here, we investigated the effects of both mosquito and vertebrate community characteristics on the transmission of four vector-borne avian pathogens in order to test the predictions of DEH in a natural system. We sampled wild house sparrows (Passer domesticus) as susceptible hosts for avian malaria parasites and related haemosporidians belonging the genera Plasmodium, Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon [30], and the flavivirus WNV [31]. While mosquitoes transmit WNV and Plasmodium parasites, Haemoproteus (subgenera Parahaemoproteus) is transmitted by Culicoides biting midges and Leucocytozoon by black flies [32]. These four widely distributed pathogens infect wild birds [32,33] but only WNV is also able to induce disease in mammals. In fact, mammals are dead-end hosts of WNV [33] as they do not develop sufficient viremia levels when infected to transmit the virus to the mosquitoes that feed on them. A basic premise of DEH is that the host competence for each pathogen varies between species, which is the case of the four pathogens studied here. For instance, compared to Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites, Plasmodium spp. are considered generalist parasites infecting birds of different taxa (i.e., orders) [34], although differences may occur between parasite lineages [35] and owing to environmental conditions [36]. In addition, although WNV is a generalist pathogen with a complex eco-epidemiology that is known to replicate in more than 300 species of birds (https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/dead-birds/index.html), there is important interspecific variation in host competence due to differences in the magnitude and duration of the peak of the viremia [37].

Thus, the aims of our study were to analyse the prevalence of these four avian pathogens in 45 sparrow populations and determine whether or not the DEH best explains the observed infection patterns. Specifically, we would expect a lower prevalence of the four studied pathogens as vertebrate species richness or diversity increased. We used different metrics of species richness and diversity in vector and host communities to understand their potential effect on the occurrence of DEH. In particular, in the case of species richness, we estimated the rarefaction curve (for the sake of clarity, hereafter referred to as ‘richness’) [20,38] to take into account the differences between localities in the number of samples taken. Additional models were also fitted using the raw number of different species registered at each locality. As a diversity measure, to estimate the evenness we used Shannon’s equitability index [39], while for avian hosts we also estimated avian phylogenetic diversity [40,41]. By analysing different metrics of species diversity and richness, we ensured that the results reported in this study are robust to variable selection and do not depend on which parameters are selected to estimate richness and diversity. Here, we report the results of the analyses using the number of species projected from a rarefaction curve to estimate richness, and evenness as a measure of diversity. The results from models performed with the raw number of different species in each locality and the avian phylogenetic diversity did not differ quantitatively (see Supporting Information) and are only commented on in the main text when qualitative differences were found.

Finally, we tested the main relationships between different biodiversity components of hosts and vectors that have been proposed as favouring or limiting the dilution effect in the wild. First, we determined whether or not the assembly of vectors and hosts followed an additive community model. To do so, we tested for a positive relationship between vector species richness and vector density, and for a positive relationship between avian species richness and avian diversity, as expected under an additive model of community assembly. This additive model was assumed for vector and host communities in the model created by Roche et al. [29] that supports the dilution effect; however, it was considered by Rohr et al. [25] to be a mechanism that could limit the dilution effect in hosts (see also [21]). Secondly, we tested the idea that denser host communities will support denser vector communities–thereby reducing the potential for disease dilution [12]–by testing the relationship between avian and mammal (host) densities and vector density, a relationship that is often taken for granted but for which to date there is little empirical evidence.

Results

Pathogen prevalence and host and vector community association

Data on infection by Plasmodium, Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites was taken from 2,588 house sparrows (range: 10–105 individuals per locality); West Nile virus seroprevalence was recorded for 2,544 of these sparrows (range: 10–102).

The prevalence of Plasmodium, Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon and the seroprevalence of WNV were 29.6% (95% C.I.: 27.8–31.3), 14.1% (95% C.I.: 12.8–15.5), 28.6% (95% C.I.: 26.9–30.4) and 0.7% (95% C.I.: 0.4–1.1), respectively. The results from the models including only vertebrate-related variables are summarized in Table 1. Infection by WNV and Leucocytozoon were positively associated with avian species richness (Figs 1A and 2A). In the case of variables reflecting the mammal communities, different significant associations were found. Infection by Haemoproteus was negatively associated with mammal density (Fig 3A), an association that was positive in the case of Leucocytozoon (Fig 2B). Both infection by Haemoproteus and WNV seroprevalence were negatively associated with mammal richness (Figs 1B and 3B) but positively related with mammal diversity (Figs 1C and 3C).

Table 1. Results of the GLMMs testing the relationships between the prevalence of avian malaria Plasmodium, the related Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites (N = 2,588), and the seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544), and individual characteristics of house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian and mammal species density, richness (estimated from a rarefaction curve) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold; conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

Plasmodium Haemoproteus Leucocytozoon West Nile virus
Independent variable Estimate (±S.E.) χ2 d.f. p Estimate (±S.E.) χ2 d.f. p Estimate (±S.E.) χ2 d.f. p Estimate (±S.E.) χ2 d.f. p
Intercept 0.56 (0.99) 0.32 1 0.57 0.01 (1.44) 0.00 1 0.99 -1.42 (1.15) 1.53 1 0.22 0.99 (4.16) 0.05 1 0.81
Month -0.13 (0.06) 4.35 1 0.04 -0.19 (0.09) 3.62 1 0.06 -0.12 (0.07) 2.53 1 0.11 -0.82 (0.30) 7.77 1 0.005
Sex: male 0.00a
0.19

1

0.66
0.00a
5.17

1

0.02
0.00a
1.31

1

0.25
0.00a
0.34

1

0.56
Sex: female 0.04 (0.09) -0.32 (0.14) -0.12 (0.10) -0.24 (0.41)
Age: unknown 0.00a
5.87

2

0.05
0.00a
20.92

2

<0.001
0.00a
37.31

2

<0.001
0.00a
1.46

2

0.48
Age: juvenile -0.17 (0.15) -0.71 (0.29) 0.04 (0.18) -0.43 (1.08)
Age: adult -0.44 (0.19) -0.03 (0.33) 0.86 (0.22) 0.07 (1.13)
Avian density -0.01 (0.01) 2.56 1 0.11 -0.01 (0.01) 0.98 1 0.32 -0.01 (0.01) 0.87 1 0.37 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 1 0.94
Avian richness -0.02 (0.03) 0.60 1 0.44 0.06 (0.04) 2.15 1 0.14 0.08 (1.31) 4.96 1 0.02 0.37 (0.11) 12.18 1 <0.001
Avian diversity 0.95 (1.05) 0.81 1 0.37 -0.53 (1.56) 0.12 1 0.73 -0.09 (1.31) 0.01 1 0.95 -5.68 (4.14) 1.88 1 0.17
Mammal density -0.01 (0.01) 0.57 1 0.45 -0.05 (0.02) 6.97 1 0.01 0.06 (0.02) 12.01 1 <0.001 -0.05 (0.05) 1.24 1 0.26
Mammal richness 0.06 (0.02) 0.14 1 0.71 -0.53 (0.25) 4.64 1 0.03 -0.25 (0.21) 1.35 1 0.24 -2.59 (0.61) 17.85 1 <0.001
Mammal diversity -0.90 (0.50) 3.24 1 0.07 1.22 (0.55) 4.97 1 0.02 0.47 (0.52) 0.79 1 0.37 7.83 (1 84) 18.04 1 <0.001
R2 (%) 3.72 (15.40) 9.74 (37.72) 7.39 (36.83) 49.34 (69.98)

a Reference category.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Leverage plots showing the relationships between WNV seroprevalence in house sparrows from the 45 localities included in this study and A) avian richness (estimated from a rarefaction curve), B) mammal richness (estimated from a rarefaction curve), and C) mammal diversity (measured as the evenness index). The prevalence of Leucocytozoon was calculated using the least squares means of a GLM controlling for birds’ ages and locality. The 95% confidence level interval is shown in grey.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Leverage plots showing the relationships between Leucocytozoon prevalence in house sparrows from the 45 localities included in this study and A) avian richness (estimated from a rarefaction curve) and B) mammal density (sum of the densities of all mammals detected at each locality). The prevalence of Leucocytozoon was calculated using the least squares means of a GLM controlling for birds’ ages and locality. The 95% confidence level interval is shown in grey.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Leverage plots showing the relationships between Haemoproteus prevalence in house sparrows from the 45 localities included in this study and A) mammal density (sum of the density of all mammal species detected at each locality), B) mammal richness (estimated from a rarefaction curve) and C) mammal diversity (measured as the evenness index). The prevalence of Haemoproteus calculated using the least squares means of a GLM controlling for birds’ sex and age, and locality. The 95% confidence level interval is shown in grey.

When mosquito-related variables were added to Plasmodium and WNV models (the two studied mosquito-borne pathogens), all the previous significant associations between pathogen infections and variables reflecting vertebrate communities remained the same (Table 2). No significant association was found between infection by Plasmodium or WNV and either mosquito species richness or diversity (Table 2).

Table 2. Results of the GLMMs analysing the relationship between the prevalence of the two studied mosquito-borne pathogens: avian malaria Plasmodium (N = 2,588) and seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544) and the individual characteristics of the house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian and mammal species density, richness (measured from a rarefaction curve) and diversity (calculated as evenness index), vector richness (estimated from a rarefaction curve) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold. Conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

Plasmodium West Nile virus
Independent variable Estimate (±S.E.) χ2 d.f. p Estimate (±S.E.) χ2 d.f. p
Intercept 1.35 (1.18) 1.32 1 0.25 0.06 (4.63) 0.00 1 0.99
Month -0.12 (0.03) 3.70 1 0.05 -0.84 (0.30) 7.97 1 0.005
Sex: male 0.00a
0.16

1

0.69
0.00a
0.32

1

0.57
Sex: female 0.04 (0.09) -0.23 (0.41)
Age: unknown 0.00a
5.44

2

0.06
0.00a
1.63

2

0.44
Age: juvenile -0.16 (0.15) -0.41 (1.07)
Age: adult -0.43 (0.19) 0.14 (1.13)
Avian density -0.01 (0.01) 1.17 1 0.28 0.01 (0.01) 0.14 1 0.71
Avian richness 0.01 (0.04) 0.01 1 0.94 0.37 (0.11) 10.68 1 0.001
Avian evenness 0.68 (1.09) 0.39 1 0.53 -4.21 (4.69) 0.80 1 0.37
Mammal density 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 1 0.91 -0.07 (0.05) 1.68 1 0.19
Mammal richness -0.07 (0.19) 0.12 1 0.72 -2.17 (0.89) 5.88 1 0.001
Mammal diversity -0.16 (0.65) 0.07 1 0.79 7.01 (2.45) 8.12 1 0.004
Mosquito richness -0.17 (0.17) 1.01 1 0.31 -0.46 (0.39) 1.39 1 0.23
Mosquito diversity -1.05 (0.83) 1.61 1 0.20 3.24 (3.51) 0.85 1 0.35
R2 (%) 3.86 (14.36) 44.88 (63.10)

a Reference category.

Additionally, relationships between vertebrate communities and pathogen infection were, with few exceptions, qualitatively the same in models that include the raw number of different avian species registered at each locality and the avian phylogenetic diversity (S1 and S3 Tables). These exceptions were a positive association between Haemoproteus prevalence and avian richness (S1 and S3 Tables), and a negative relationship between Plasmodium prevalence and both mammal diversity (S1 Table) and avian density (S3 Table). No significant differences were found in models that included vector variables (S2 and S4 Tables).

Biodiversity components favouring or limiting the dilution effect

The number of different mosquito species captured at each sampling locality during the sampling period was positively related to the total number of mosquitoes captured at each locality (estimate ± S.E. = 1.649 ± 0.281, t37.72 = 5.882, p < 0.001; Fig 4A). However, this relationship disappears when we consider the richness estimated from a rarefaction curve. Additionally, mosquito diversity was negatively associated with the total number of mosquitoes collected (-0.111 ± 0.028, t43 = -3.977, p < 0.001), which was itself unrelated to both the density of avian hosts, and to the combined density of avian and mammal individuals. Rather, a negative relationship–and not a positive one as predicted–was found to exist between the total number of mosquitoes collected and the density of mammal hosts (-0.039 ± 0.012, t32.82 = -3.243, p < 0.003; Fig 4B). Finally, while avian evenness was only marginally related to avian richness, calculated as the number of different bird species recorded at a locality (0.003 ± 0.002, t43 = 1.814, p = 0.077), this relationship reached significance when avian richness was estimated from a rarefaction curve (0.015 ± 0.003, t42.82 = 4.686, p < 0.001; Fig 4C).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Relationships between A) mosquito richness (measured from a rarefaction curve) and the total number of mosquitoes collected; B) the number of mosquitoes collected and mammal density; and C) avian diversity (measured as the evenness index) and avian richness (estimated from a rarefaction curve) at the 45 localities included in this study. The 95% confidence level interval is shown in grey.

Discussion

Contrary to the predictions of DEH, none of the relationships between either host species diversity or richness were negatively associated with the prevalence of the four studied avian pathogens. Indeed, positive relationships were found between avian species richness and both WNV seroprevalence and Leucocytozoon prevalence, a pattern that is opposite to one expected. Moreover, when vector richness and evenness were incorporated into the system, the outcomes did not change. We would thus expect that any negative relationship between vertebrate and mosquito community, and pathogen infection will depend on the local ecological factors that favour pathogen dilution. These results were not affected by age, sex, or seasonal changes in pathogen prevalence since these variables were included as individuals’ covariates in the models.

The role played by the DEH is part of the intense debate that is currently raging regarding the ecosystemic services that biodiversity provides for public health [7,8,12,26,42,43]. The best support for the dilution effect comes from studies of Lyme disease [5,14,15,4446], a number of which suggest that species diversity is negatively related to disease risk. However, as many authors have noted, separating the effects of biodiversity from those due to the presence of particular host species is problematical [19,42]. For example, the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) may play a key role in disease epidemiology as it is highly efficient at infecting ticks and is thought to be the main natural reservoir of Lyme disease in eastern North America.

We tested DEH on a multi-pathogen system by taking into account both the potential role of vertebrate hosts and mosquito vectors. Although host diversity has been reported to generally inhibit pathogen transmission success [42], our results pose the critical question of how and how often the dilution effect operates in animal pathogens. We analysed the predictions of DEH in four different vector-borne pathogens and the expected negative relationship between parasite prevalence and avian host species richness or diversity was not found for any of the parasites. In fact, contrary to the predictions of DEH, WNV seroprevalence and Leucocytozoon infection were positively associated with the avian richness estimated from a rarefaction curve and we have no reason to think that the relationship would be any different for other avian species at the studied localities. Similarly, models including the number of different avian species at each locality reinforced these results with the addition of a significant and positive relationship with the prevalence of infection by Haemoproteus parasites. Overall, these results support the incidence of increased pathogen transmission in areas with richer avian communities, contrary to the predictions of DEH.

In North America, WNV infection rates in both mosquitoes and humans have been found to be negatively associated with non-passerine species richness [47]. Indeed, after controlling for socioeconomic factors potentially affecting the prevalence of WNV disease, a lower incidence of WNV in humans was found in US counties with greater avian species richness and diversity (i.e., evenness [10]). In addition, Allan et al. [48] found that WNV prevalence in vector mosquitoes was negatively related to avian diversity. By contrast, avian species richness was positively correlated with WNV seroprevalence in the areas we studied. Although the approaches used in these two studies differ, the contrasting patterns of WNV infection in relation to biodiversity may be linked to the different epidemiology of WNV on these two continents [49].

In southern Spain, even though the density of competent vectors such as the ornithophilic Cx. perexiguus may facilitate WNV transmission in birds [50], this species mostly occurs in natural rural areas and is less abundant near inhabited areas [51]. Thus, in our study area in Spain, flavivirus transmission relies mainly on the mosquito species that are most abundant in areas of high avian diversity [11,50], while in USA transmission is likely to be more linked to the mosquito species that frequent built-up areas [52], which are probably characterised by lower avian diversity. For instance, the mosquito species Cx. perexiguus seems to be responsible for much of the WNV transmission that occurs in southern Spain [50,53,54], where this species is commoner in less urban and more rural areas [51] possessing greater avian biodiversity than in urban areas. Conversely, in Spain, WNV circulates naturally between wild birds and mosquitoes [50] and only sporadic cases of humans with clinical symptoms are reported. Despite this, a large outbreak occurred in 2020 involving 77 human cases and seven deaths [55]. Usutu virus, another mosquito-transmitted flavivirus, is present in our study area and, like WNV, has only been detected in SW Spain in Cx. perexiguus [11]. Similarly, this virus is mainly present in areas with high avian biodiversity, including the Doñana National Park [11].

WNV transmission could also be affected by the species composition of the vertebrate host community where one or a few avian species may be responsible for most transmission events [18]. Thus, differences between host species in terms of their exposure to mosquito bites and their competence for WNV transmission success may result in large local differences in the amplification of WNV linked to the composition of the avian community [18]. For these reasons we also checked for the potential effect of the phylogenetic diversity of the avian community. However, no associations were found with any of the four pathogens we investigated.

Differences in the feeding preferences of mosquitoes have been reported, with mosquito bites occurring more often in certain animal species [56] or in individuals with particular phenotypic characteristics (e.g., body size) [57]. For example, WNV mosquito vectors feed on American robins (Turdus migratorius) in North America and European blackbirds (Turdus merula) at a much higher rate than expected given their abundance in relation to other avian species. However, the blood-feeding patterns of mosquitoes may depend on the composition of the host community in the area [18,58]. This was reported by Kilpatrick et al. [18], who noted that an increase in WNV incidence in humans was linked to a shift in the feeding preferences of mosquitoes from birds to humans when the preferred host species, the migratory American robin, left for its winter quarters. Consequently, the potential relationship between biodiversity and pathogen prevalence may also be strongly influenced by the composition of vertebrate communities [11] and, in particular, by whether species-poor communities are dominated by competent or non-competent vertebrates. Mammal density in theory may also reduce pathogen prevalence in avian species as infected vectors biting mammals will not transmit the pathogen. However, mammal density was negatively related to Haemoproteus prevalence and positively associated to Leucocytozoon prevalence. At least in the case of biting midges, the main vector of Haemoproteus, mammals may provide alternative blood-feeding opportunities for insect vectors, thereby reducing parasite transmission success [59]. This is supported by the relatively opportunistic behaviour of important vectors of Haemoproteus such as Culicoides circumscriptus, which feeds on both mammals and birds [60]. However, according to our results, this may not be the case in blackflies, the main vectors of Leucocytozoon. Depending on their feeding patterns, this group is either ornithophilic or mammophilic due to differences in the structure of females’ claws [61].

According to previous studies, an increase in vector diversity and richness may also favour pathogen transmission success [9,29]. In species-rich communities where there are more mosquito species, the probability that pathogens will interact with competent vectors may increase and compensate for the ‘wasted’ bites on reservoir species that are only weakly susceptible. However, this possibility was not supported by our results due to the lack of any association between the prevalence of Plasmodium and WNV seroprevalence and any measure of mosquito richness. Plasmodium and WNV are multi-vector pathogens, and a diversity of mosquito species are involved in their transmission [24,53,62], which underlines the complexity of the study system. In addition, Roche’s model [29] assumed that the most abundant vector was also the most susceptible. Of the species sampled in our study, Cx. perexiguus, Cx. pipiens and Cx. modestus, the main vectors of WNV in Europe [62], were less abundant and widespread than other commoner species (i.e., Ae. caspius and Cx. theileri) that probably do not play such an important role in WNV transmission in the area [50,54].

Randolph and Dobson [12] have criticized the dilution effect since species-rich host communities may hold more individuals capable of sustaining a higher abundance of vectors, and so vertebrate-rich communities may in fact have higher pathogen transmission rates. Although this may be the case for ticks, for mosquitoes our results suggest that vector and host densities are unrelated. In other words, in our study area, mosquito density is not limited by vertebrate availability but, rather, is probably more affected by other environmental factors such as climate and landscape characteristics [51,63]. The presence of suitable habitats for egg-laying and larval development may be a more serious limitation on mosquito populations than vertebrate densities since lower densities may be compensated for by increases in the biting rate per host [12]. Only in the case of mammals did we find a negative relationship between mammal and vector density, thereby suggesting that mammals may in fact avoid areas with more mosquitoes. Previous studies [12,29] have been based on assumptions that were not supported by our study, namely, i) host community assembly is additive and ii) the density of vectors and reservoirs are related.

Quantifying biodiversity is a difficult task since the methods used may bias estimates of species richness, diversity, and density. However, our results show that the lack of any negative relationship between biodiversity and pathogen prevalence do not depend on the diversity estimators employed. In addition, some methodological limitations may affect the conclusions obtained. For example, the method used here to record avian species was obviously biased against nocturnal species such as nightjars and owls, while our mammal estimates were biased against rodents. However, our studies of mosquito diets in the area suggest that these other groups account for only a very small fraction of mosquito bloodmeals [54] and, consequently, will not have any critical effect on the studied pathogen transmission. Furthermore, despite the large sample size, we only studied pathogen prevalence in a single avian species. However, this was the only species present at all the studied localities and by focussing on just one species we were able to compare pathogen prevalence between different localities. Interestingly, house sparrows are bitten by Cx. pipiens at a frequency similar to that expected given their relative abundance in the avian community [56] and consequently should be a reliable avian species for surveying pathogens such as Plasmodium and WNV transmitted by this mosquito species [53]. In addition, even though avian malaria parasites vary in their ability to infect different avian species [64], some of the parasites infecting house sparrows are generalists. This is the case of the Plasmodium relictum lineage SGS1 infecting house sparrows [65] that has been found to infect more than 125 species belonging to a number of different orders [66]. This may also be the case in WNV, which is a multi-host multi-vector pathogen able to infect more than 300 species of birds (https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/dead-birds/index.html) according to a wide range of experimental studies [37] as WNV antibodies have been identified in many different bird species in the study area [67]. Thus, although some specialist parasite-host assemblages do occur in this community, most of the pathogens studied here are not restricted to house sparrows, which probably reflects the general pattern shown in other species present in the area. Therefore, the patterns found in house sparrows may reflect those occurring in other species in the area, and we have no reason to think that this bird species is an exception in this community. It is important to note that the dilution effect refers to a reduction in disease transmission in the system and consequently should be detectable in any host species present.

Conclusions

By characterizing mosquito and vertebrate communities present at different localities with diverse biotic and abiotic conditions, this work simultaneously analyzed the influence of biodiversity on four pathogens that use multiple vector species for their transmission. We found no support for DEH as a general process operating on vector-borne pathogens, which suggests that any relationship between host and/or vector biodiversity and pathogen prevalence will depend heavily on host community composition and the characteristics of the pathogen. Although our study system possessed many qualities that make it a good candidate for the occurrence of the dilution effect (i.e., a vector-borne pathogen, an area where vector and host density are unrelated, and substitutive community assembly; see [21,25]), the relationship between avian species richness and pathogen prevalence was non-significant for one of the pathogens and positive for the other three. Our results suggest that many of the assumptions made by models analysing the viability of the dilution effect are unrealistic or, at least, not applicable to our study system. The dilution effect may operate locally under certain circumstances (specific areas and/or diseases) but, as our results suggest, it cannot be regarded as an emerging property of biodiversity (see for example [68]). Consequently, the range of pathogens studied needs to be broadened and a ‘One Health’ approach applied to fully understand the ecological factors that favour pathogen dilution and the frequency with which these conditions occur in nature.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The CSIC Ethics Committee approved the experimental procedures on 9 March 2012. This study did not affect any endangered species.

Mosquito and bird trapping were carried out with all the necessary permits from the Consejería de Medio Ambiente, and Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca y Desarrollo Rural (Junta de Andalucía). Entomological surveys and bird sampling on private land and in private residential areas were conducted with all the necessary permits and consent, and in the presence of owners.

Fieldwork was conducted in 2013 in southern Spain, an area of Mediterranean climate with long dry summers and most rainfall in winter. The study was carried out in 45 localities in Cadiz, Huelva, and Seville provinces, which were grouped into triplets (Fig 5) of habitat category (urban, rural, and natural) to maximize differences in biodiversity whilst controlling for geographically structured factors (see Statistical analyses). The three localities in each triplet were visited to capture insect vectors or count vertebrates on the same day, while house sparrows were sampled in different field sessions on consecutive days at sites within the same triplet. The median delay between the vertebrate census and mosquito sampling was 0 days, with a 25% quantile of six days before and a 75% quantile of nine days afterwards.

Fig 5. Distribution of the 45 localities at which house sparrows were captured in southwest Spain.

Fig 5

Map was built with ArcGIS v10.2.1 (ESRI, Redland) and developed by using shape files of Datos Espaciales de Referencia de Andalucía (DERA, https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodeestadisticaycartografia/DERA/g13.htm).

Bird and mosquito sampling

House sparrows were captured using mist nets at the 45 localities in July–October after the breeding season to facilitate the capture of juvenile birds that would be the best test of pathogen circulation in that year. Birds were marked, sexed, and aged [69], and a blood sample was taken from the jugular vein of each bird before immediate release at the place of capture.

Data from the mosquito captures has previously been analysed by Ferraguti et al. [51] to identify the impact of landscape anthropization on mosquito communities (see S1 Text for further information on vector sampling and community abundance and composition). In brief, mosquitoes were captured in April–December 2013, corresponding to the period of maximum mosquito activity in southern Spain [63]. Mosquitoes were preserved on dry ice and then transported to the laboratory for identification to species level [24]. Mosquitoes belonging to the univittatus complex were identified as Culex perexiguus based on male genitalia, following Harbach [70].

For each locality, we calculated i) the mosquito species richness estimated from a rarefaction curve with the function rarefy (package vegan, [38]); ii) the diversity of mosquito communities calculated as the evenness, i.e., the similarities between the frequencies of individuals belonging to the different species that constitute a community using Shannon’s equitability index [39]; and iii) the number of total captures of each mosquito species. The mean value of the daily number of mosquitoes captured was calculated for each of the 45 localities to test for the potential relationships in the community additive assembly model for vectors assumed by Roche et al. [29] and the association between host and vector density proposed by Randolph & Dobson [12]. Additionally, further models were conducted using the number of different mosquito species registered at each locality during the whole sampling period. The number of mosquitoes sampled was used as an estimate of mosquito abundance/density assuming that the sampled area was equivalent throughout the season and at all localities.

Vertebrate censuses

Avian and mammal counts were conducted in June–November 2013 at the same localities as the mosquito sampling. Although the vertebrate community could vary between seasons (i.e., due to the arrival of migrant individuals), we included the mean value of the vertebrate censuses conducted in June–November that coincided with the house sparrow captures (see S1 Text for further information on vertebrate censuses and community abundance and composition).

For each locality, we calculated the average values for the summer and autumn counts of avian and mammal densities, species richness estimated from a rarefaction curve [20,38], and species diversity calculated as the evenness using Shannon’s equitability index [39]. Alternative models were also conducted using the number of different vertebrate species recorded at each locality, while the avian phylogenetic diversity was implemented in avian community models [40,41]. The average value for summer and autumn counts of the sum of the vertebrate density (avian plus mammal) was estimated for each of the 45 localities to test for the association between host and vector density proposed by Randolph & Dobson [12]. For further details on vertebrate community abundance and composition, see Ferraguti et al. [65].

Molecular and serological analyses

Genomic DNA was extracted from blood samples and the cell fractions of all house sparrows sampled using the Maxwell16 LEV system Research (Promega, Madison, WI). Infections by Plasmodium, Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites were detected following Hellgren et al. [71]. Molecular analyses of negative samples were repeated to avoid false negatives [72]. Both negative controls for PCR reactions (at least one per plate) and DNA extraction (one per 15 samples) were included in the analysis. Positive amplifications were sequenced using the Macrogen sequencing service (Macrogen Inc., The Netherlands) to identify the parasite genus. Sequences were identified by comparing with the GenBank DNA sequence (National Center for Biotechnology Information, Blast). The Plasmodium, Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites infecting the birds studied here are described in Ferraguti et al. [65] and Jiménez-Peñuela et al. [73].

Bird sera were screened to detect antibodies against WNV with the ELISA kit INGEZIM West Nile COMPAC (Ingenasa Spain) [74]. Not enough serum was obtained for 44 out of the 2,588 birds sampled, so these individuals were excluded from WNV analyses. Positive or doubtful ELISA samples were subsequently analysed with a virus neutralization test (VNT) using the micro-assay format (96-well plates), as described by Llorente et al. [75]. Neutralizing antibody titres were determined in parallel for each serum sample against WNV (strain Eg-101) and Usutu virus (USUV, strain SAAR1776) using serial (twofold) dilutions (1:10–1:1280) of each serum sample in a VNT. Observed neutralizing immune responses were considered specific for WNV when VNT titres were at least four-times higher than for USUV. USUV, belonging to the Japanese encephalitis group, is another flavivirus currently circulating between birds and mosquitoes in the area [67,75]. Usutu prevalence in house sparrows (0.04%) was too low to allow for any analysis of the relationship between Usutu prevalence and biodiversity. Data on the prevalence of WNV antibodies in these birds has previously been analysed by Martínez-de la Puente et al. [50] to identify the main vectors involved in WNV transmission and the risk of spillover to humans.

Statistical analyses

Firstly, Generalized Linear Mixed–Effects Models (GLMM) with a ‘logit’ link function and binomial distribution were used to investigate which factors are associated with infection by Plasmodium, Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon, and WNV seroprevalence in wild house sparrows. Separate models were used for each pathogen. The infection status of each individual (infected or uninfected) for each pathogen was included as the dependent variable, while bird age and sex (categorical), month of capture, and avian and mammal density, richness and diversity were included as continuous independent variables. Independent models were performed for the different metrics of species richness and diversity. Individual variables such as age, sex and month were included to control for potential differences in prevalence of pathogens between less than one-year-old birds, males and females, and the increasing prevalence of pathogens as the summer progressed [65,76,77].

In addition to the host variables, for the mosquito-borne pathogens Plasmodium and WNV, additional GLMMs including mosquito species richness (continuous) and evenness (continuous) were performed. Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon prevalence analyses were restricted to the vertebrate community as we lacked information on the density of their main vectors (Culicoides and blackflies, respectively). Province, triplet nested in province, and locality nested in triplet and province, were included as random factors to account for the geographical stratification of the sampling design. For each GLMM, the marginal (considering only fixed factors) and conditional (considering fixed and random factors) variance explained (R2) were calculated following Nakagawa and Schielzeth [78]. The collinearity between all independent variables was tested using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) [79]; GLMM over-dispersion was checked for using the Pearson statistic (ratio of the Pearson χ2 to its degrees of freedom), a common method for assessing the deviance of goodness-of-fit statistics [80]. We found no evidence of collinearity between the variables included in the models or of overdispersion, as the Pearson dispersion statistics were always close to 1.

Secondly, LMMs were used to test biodiversity components favouring or limiting the dilution effect by analysing the relationships between mosquito and vertebrate (avian and mammal) variables estimated at each of the 45 localities. Normality of continuous variables and the residuals of all the LMMs were tested by checking normality qq-plots and Shapiro-Wilk’s normality tests. The number of total mosquito captures (continuous, mean number of mosquitoes trapped per day in the locality) was log-transformed to normalize their distribution. Specifically, independent LMMs were performed to test the relationship between mosquito richness (dependent) or diversity (dependent) and the number of total captures (independent), the number of mosquito total captures (dependent) and the densities of i) avian hosts, ii) mammal hosts and iii) total vertebrates, as independent variables. Finally, the association between avian diversity (dependent) and avian richness (independent) was also tested. The 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) of Plasmodium, Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon and the seroprevalence of WNV were calculated with the function binconf from the package Hmisc.

All statistical analyses were conducted in R [81] using the packages arm, car, ggplot2, lme4, MASS, Matrix, MuMIn, Rcpp, stats and vegan. The database used for the statistical analyses and the numerical data used in all figures are included in S1 Data.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Results of the GLMMs testing the relationships between the prevalence of avian malaria Plasmodium, the related Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites (N = 2,588), and the and the seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544) and individual characteristics of house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian and mammal species density, richness (estimated as the raw number of different avian or mammal species registered at each sampling site), and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold; conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Results of the GLMMs analysing the relationship between the prevalence of the two studied mosquito-borne pathogens: avian malaria Plasmodium (N = 2,588) and seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544) and the individual characteristics of the house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian and mammal species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different avian or mammal species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as evenness index), and vector species richness (measured as the raw number of different mosquito species captured at each sampling) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold. Conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

(PDF)

S3 Table. Results of the GLMMs testing the relationships between the prevalence of avian malaria Plasmodium, the related Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites (N = 2,588), and the seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544), and individual characteristics of house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian species density, richness (estimated as the raw number of different avian species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (estimated as avian phylogenetic diversity), mammal species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different mammal species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold; conditional and marginal relationships are in brackets; R2 variance are shown.

(PDF)

S4 Table. Results of the GLMMs analysing the relationship between the prevalence of the two mosquito–borne pathogens studied: avian malaria Plasmodium (N = 2,588) and seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544) and the individual characteristics of the house sparrows (age, sex and month of capture), avian species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different avian species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as the avian phylogenetic diversity), mammal species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different mammal species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as evenness index), and vector species richness (measured from the raw number of different mosquito species captured at each sampling) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold. Conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

(PDF)

S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet containing in separate sheets the numerical data used for the statistical analysis and for the figure preparation.

(XLSX)

S1 Text. Supporting information: methods and results.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

Alberto Pastoriza, Manuel Vázquez, Manolo Lobón, Óscar González, Carlos Moreno, Cristina Pérez, Esmeralda Pérez, Juana Moreno Fernández, Antonio Magallanes and Martín de Oliva helped with the fieldwork and mosquito identification. Isabel Martín, Laura Gómez, Francisco M. Miranda Castro, Olaya García Ruiz, Carmen Barbero Ameller and Antonio Sanz (INgenasa) collaborated with the laboratory analyses. We are grateful to all the landowners and to the Consejería de Medio Ambiente for allowing us to work on their properties. Mike Lockwood revised the English text.

Data Availability

All relevant data, including the complete dataset, are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by project P11-RNM-7038 from the Junta de Andalucía and project PGC2018-095704-B-100 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and European (FEDER) funds to JF. MF is currently funded by the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellowship from the European Commission (grant number 844285, ‘EpiEcoMod’). JMP was partially supported by a 2017 Leonardo Grant for Researchers and Cultural Creators, BBVA Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL, et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2008;451: 990–993. doi: 10.1038/nature06536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vorou RM, Papavassiliou VG, Tsiodras S. Emerging zoonoses and vector-borne infections affecting humans in Europe. Epidemiol Infect. 2007;135: 1231–1247. doi: 10.1017/S0950268807008527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.National Academies of Science, Engineering and M. Global health impacts of vector-borne diseases. Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. doi: 10.17226/21792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rosenberg R, Lindsey NP, Fischer M, Gregory CJ, Hinckley AF, Mead PS, et al. Vital signs: trends in reported vectorborne disease cases—United States and territories, 2004–2016. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67: 496–501. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6717e1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.LoGiudice K, Ostfeld RS, Schmidt KA, Keesing F. The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100: 567–571. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0233733100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Keesing F, Holt RD, Ostfeld RS. Effects of species diversity on disease risk. Ecol Lett. 2006;9: 485–498. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00885.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Keesing F, Belden LK, Daszak P, Dobson A, Harvell CD, Holt RD, et al. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature. 2010;468: 647–652. doi: 10.1038/nature09575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wood CL, Lafferty KD, DeLeo G, Young HS, Hudson PJ, Kuris AM. Does biodiversity protect humans against infectious disease? Ecology. 2014;95: 817–832. doi: 10.1890/13-1041.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Roche B, Dobson AP, Guégan J-F, Rohani P. Linking community and disease ecology: the impact of biodiversity on pathogen transmission. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012;367: 2807–2813. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Swaddle JP, Calos SE. Increased avian diversity is associated with lower incidence of human West Nile infection: observation of the dilution effect. Buckling A, editor. PLoS One. 2008;3: e2488. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Roiz D, Vázquez A, Ruiz S, Tenorio A, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Evidence that Passerine birds act as amplifying hosts for Usutu virus circulation. Ecohealth. 2019;16: 734–742. doi: 10.1007/s10393-019-01441-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Randolph SE, Dobson ADM. Pangloss revisited: a critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-buffers-disease paradigm. Parasitology. 2012;139: 847–863. doi: 10.1017/S0031182012000200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Keesing F, Ostfeld RS. An ecosystem service of biodiversity: the protection of human health against infectious disease. In: Aguirre A, Ostfeld RS, Daszak P, editors. New Directions in Conservation Medicine: applied cases of ecological health. Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 56–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ostfeld RS, Keesing F. Biodiversity series: the function of biodiversity in the ecology of vector-borne zoonotic diseases. Can J Zool. 2000;78: 2061–2078. doi: 10.1139/z00-172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ostfeld RS, Keesing F. Biodiversity and disease risk: the case of Lyme disease. Conserv Biol. 2000;14: 722–728. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99014.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Suzán G, Marcé E, Giermakowski JT, Mills JN, Ceballos G, Ostfeld RS, et al. Experimental evidence for reduced rodent diversity causing increased hantavirus prevalence. PLoS One. 2009;4: e5461. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Michael B. Effects of host diversity on disease dynamics. In: Ostfeld RS, Keesing F, Eviner VT, editors. Infectious Disease Ecology: effects of ecosystems on disease and of disease on ecosystems. Princeton University Press; 2008. pp. 12–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kilpatrick AM, Daszak P, Jones MJ, Marra PP, Kramer LD. Host heterogeneity dominates West Nile virus transmission. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006;273: 2327–2333. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.LoGiudice K, Duerr STK, Newhouse MJ, Schmidt KA, Killilea ME, Ostfeld RS. Impact of host community composition on Lyme disease risk. Ecology. 2008;89: 2841–2849. doi: 10.1890/07-1047.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. Estimating species richness. Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. 2011. pp. 39–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Johnson PTJ, Ostfeld RS, Keesing F. Frontiers in research on biodiversity and disease. Ecol Lett. 2015;18: 1119–1133. doi: 10.1111/ele.12479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cohen JM, Civitello DJ, Brace AJ, Feichtinger EM, Ortega CN, Richardson JC, et al. Spatial scale modulates the strength of ecological processes driving disease distributions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113: E3359–E3364. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1521657113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Luis AD, Kuenzi AJ, Mills JN. Species diversity concurrently dilutes and amplifies transmission in a zoonotic host–pathogen system through competing mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115: 7979–7984. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1807106115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Becker N, Petric D, Zgomba M, Boase C, Madon M. Mosquitoes and their control. Second Edi. Springer Science & Business Media; 2010. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92874-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rohr JR, Civitello DJ, Halliday FW, Hudson PJ, Lafferty KD, Wood CL, et al. Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4: 24–33. doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Civitello DJ, Cohen J, Fatima H, Halstead NT, Liriano J, Mcmahon TA, et al. Biodiversity inhibits parasites: broad evidence for the dilution effect. PNAS. 2015;112: 8667–8671. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1506279112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Salkeld DJ, Padgett KA, Jones JH, Antolin MF. Public health perspective on patterns of biodiversity and zoonotic disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: E6261. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517640112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Salkeld DJ, Padgett KA, Jones JH. A meta-analysis suggesting that the relationship between biodiversity and risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission is idiosyncratic. Lafferty K, editor. Ecol Lett. 2013;16: 679–686. doi: 10.1111/ele.12101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Roche B, Rohani P, Dobson AP, Guégan J-F. The impact of community organization on vector-borne pathogens. Am Nat. 2013;181: 1–11. doi: 10.1086/668591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Marzal A, Ricklefs RE, Valkiūnas G, Albayrak T, Arriero E, Bonneaud C, et al. Diversity, loss, and gain of malaria parasites in a globally invasive bird. Fleischer RC, editor. PLoS One. 2011;6: e21905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Del Amo J, Llorente F, Figuerola J, Soriguer RC, Moreno AM, Cordioli P, et al. Experimental infection of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) with West Nile virus isolates of Euro-Mediterranean and North American origins. Vet Res. 2014;45: 33. doi: 10.1186/1297-9716-45-33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Valkiunas G. Avian malaria parasites and other haemosporidia CRC Press. First edit. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rizzoli A, Jiménez-Clavero MA, Barzon L, Cordioli P, Figuerola J, Koraka P, et al. The challenge of West Nile virus in Europe: knowledge gaps and research priorities. Eurosurveillance. 2015;20: 28–42. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.es2015.20.20.21135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Beadell JS, Gering E, Austin J, Dumbacher JP, Peirce MA, Pratt TK, et al. Prevalence and differential host-specificity of two avian blood parasite genera in the Australo-Papuan region. Mol Ecol. 2004;13: 3829–3844. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02363.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dimitrov D, Palinauskas V, Iezhova TA, Bernotiene R, Ilgunas M, Bukauskaite D, et al. Plasmodium spp.: an experimental study on vertebrate host susceptibility to avian malaria. Exp Parasitol. 2015;148: 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2014.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Fecchio A, Wells K, Bell JA, Tkach V-V., Lutz HL, Weckstein JD, et al. Climate variation influences host specificity in avian malaria parasites. Thrall P, editor. Ecol Lett. 2019;22: 547–557. doi: 10.1111/ele.13215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Komar N, Langevin S, Hinten S, Nemeth N, Edwards E, Hettler D, et al. Experimental infection of North American birds with the New York 1999 strain of West Nile virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9: 311–322. doi: 10.3201/eid0903.020628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Oksanen J. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5–5. 2019. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/vegan.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Agrawal A, Gopal K. Application of diversity index in measurement of species diversity. Biomonitoring of water and waste water. Springer India; 2013. pp. 41–48. doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-0864-8_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cadotte MW, Jonathan Davies T, Regetz J, Kembel SW, Cleland E, Oakley TH. Phylogenetic diversity metrics for ecological communities: integrating species richness, abundance and evolutionary history. Ecol Lett. 2010;13: 96–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01405.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Allen B, Kon M, Bar-Yam Y. A new phylogenetic diversity measure generalizing the Shannon index and its application to phyllostomid bats. Am Nat. 2009;174: 236–243. doi: 10.1086/600101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.X Huang ZY, Van Langevelde F, De Boer WF. Does the dilution effect generally occur in animal diseases? 2017;144: 823–826. doi: 10.1017/S0031182016002572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Johnson PTJ, Wood CL, Joseph MB, Preston DL, Haas SE, Springer YP. Habitat heterogeneity drives the host-diversity-begets-parasite-diversity relationship: evidence from experimental and field studies. Ebert D, editor. Ecol Lett. 2016;19: 752–761. doi: 10.1111/ele.12609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ostfeld RS, Keesing F. Straw men don’t get Lyme disease: response to Wood and Lafferty. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013;28: 502–503. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wood CL, Lafferty KD. Biodiversity and disease: a synthesis of ecological perspectives on Lyme disease transmission. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013;28: 239–247. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS. Biodiversity and the dilution effect in disease ecology. Ecology. 2001;82: 609. doi: 10.2307/2680183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ezenwa VO, Godsey MS, King RJ, Guptill SC. Avian diversity and West Nile virus: testing associations between biodiversity and infectious disease risk. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006;273: 109–117. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Allan BF, Langerhans RB, Ryberg WA, Landesman WJ, Griffin NW, Katz RS, et al. Ecological correlates of risk and incidence of West Nile virus in the United States. Oecologia. 2009;158: 699–708. doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-1169-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zeller HG, Schuffenecker I. West Nile virus: an overview of its spread in Europe and the Mediterranean basin in contrast to its spread in the Americas. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;23: 147–156. doi: 10.1007/s10096-003-1085-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Martínez-de la Puente J, Ferraguti M, Ruiz S, Roiz D, Llorente F, Pérez-Ramírez E, et al. Mosquito community influences West Nile virus seroprevalence in wild birds: implications for the risk of spillover into human populations. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 2599. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20825-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ferraguti M, Martínez-de la Puente J, Roiz D, Ruiz S, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Effects of landscape anthropization on mosquito community composition and abundance. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 29002. doi: 10.1038/srep29002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Johnson BJ, Munafo K, Shappell L, Tsipoura N, Robson M, Ehrenfeld J, et al. The roles of mosquito and bird communities on the prevalence of West Nile virus in urban wetland and residential habitats. Urban Ecosyst. 2012;15: 513–531. doi: 10.1007/s11252-012-0248-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ferraguti M, Heesterbeek H, Martínez-de la Puente J, Jiménez-Clavero MÁ, Vázquez A, Ruiz S, et al. The role of different Culex mosquito species in the transmission of West Nile virus and avian malaria parasites in Mediterranean areas. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13760 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Muñoz J, Ruiz S, Soriguer R, Alcaide M, Viana DS, Roiz D, et al. Feeding patterns of potential West Nile virus vectors in South-West Spain. PLoS One. 2012;7: e39549. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.García San Miguel Rodríguez-Alarcón L, Fernández-Martínez B, Sierra Moros MJ, Vázquez A, Julián Pachés P, García Villacieros E, et al. Unprecedented increase of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease, Spain, summer 2020. Euro Surveill. 2021; 26(19):pii = 2002010. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.19.2002010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Rizzoli A, Bolzoni L, Chadwick EA, Capelli G, Montarsi F, Grisenti M, et al. Understanding West Nile virus ecology in Europe: Culex pipiens host feeding preference in a hotspot of virus emergence. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8: 213. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0831-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Yan J, Gangoso L, Martínez-de la Puente J, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Avian phenotypic traits related to feeding preferences in two Culex mosquitoes. Sci Nat. 2017;104. doi: 10.1007/s00114-017-1497-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hoyer IJ, Blosser EM, Acevedo C, Thompson AC, Reeves LE, Burkett-Cadena ND. Mammal decline, linked to invasive Burmese python, shifts host use of vector mosquito towards reservoir hosts of a zoonotic disease. Biol Lett. 2017;13: 20170353. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2017.0353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Martínez-de la Puente J, Figuerola J, Soriguer R. Fur or feather? Feeding preferences of species of Culicoides biting midges in Europe. Trends Parasitol. 2015;31: 16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2014.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ferraguti M, Martínez-de la Puente J, Ruiz S, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. On the study of the transmission networks of blood parasites from SW Spain: diversity of avian haemosporidians in the biting midge Culicoides circumscriptus and wild birds. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6: 208. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-6-208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Malmqvist B, Strasevicius D, Hellgren O, Adler PH, Bensch S. Vertebrate host specificity of wild-caught blackflies revealed by mitochondrial DNA in blood. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2004;271: S152–S155. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Engler O, Savini G, Papa A, Figuerola J, Groschup MH, Kampen H, et al. European surveillance for West Nile virus in mosquito populations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 11 Oct 2013. 10: 4869–4895. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10104869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Roiz D, Ruiz S, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Landscape effects on the presence, abundance and diversity of mosquitoes in mediterranean wetlands. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0128112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Zhang Y, Wu Y, Zhang Q, Su D, Zou F. Prevalence patterns of avian Plasmodium and Haemoproteus parasites and the influence of host relative abundance in Southern China. PLoS One. 2014;9: e99501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ferraguti M, Martínez-de la Puente J, Bensch S, Roiz D, Ruiz S, Viana DS, et al. Ecological determinants of avian malaria infections: an integrative analysis at landscape, mosquito and vertebrate community levels. J Anim Ecol. 2018;87: 727–740. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Martínez-de la Puente J, Santiago-Alarcon D, Palinauskas V, Bensch S. Plasmodium relictum. Trends Parasitol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2020.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ferraguti M, La Puente JM De, Soriguer R, Llorente F, Jiménez-Clavero MA, Figuerola J. West Nile virus-neutralizing antibodies in wild birds from southern Spain. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144: 1907–1911. doi: 10.1017/S0950268816000133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Halliday FW, Rohr JR, Laine A. Biodiversity loss underlies the dilution effect of biodiversity. Chase J, editor. Ecol Lett. 2020;23: 1611–1622. doi: 10.1111/ele.13590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Svensson L. Identification guide to European Passerines. 4th editio. Stockholm: British Trust for Ornithology; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Harbach R. The identity of Culex perexiguus Theobald versus Cx. univittatus Theobald in southern Europe. Eur Mosq Bull. 1999;4: 7. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hellgren O, Bensch S, Malmqvist B. Bird hosts, blood parasites and their vectors—associations uncovered by molecular analyses of blackfly blood meals. Mol Ecol. 2008;17: 1605–1613. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03680.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.McClintock BT, Nichols JD, Bailey LL, MacKenzie DI, Kendall WL, Franklin AB. Seeking a second opinion: uncertainty in disease ecology. Ecol Lett. 2010;13: 659–674. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01472.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Jiménez-Peñuela J, Ferraguti M, Martínez-de la Puente J, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Urbanization and blood parasite infections affect the body condition of wild birds. Sci Total Environ. 2019;651: 3015–3022. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Sotelo E, Llorente F, Rebollo B, Camuñas A, Venteo A, Gallardo C, et al. Development and evaluation of a new epitope-blocking ELISA for universal detection of antibodies to West Nile virus. J Virol Methods. 2011;174: 35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2011.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Llorente F, García-Irazábal A, Pérez-Ramírez E, Cano-Gómez C, Sarasa M, Vázquez A, et al. Influence of flavivirus co-circulation in serological diagnostics and surveillance: a model of study using West Nile, Usutu and Bagaza viruses. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2019;66: 2100–2106. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zuk M, Stoehr AM. Sex differences in susceptibility to infection: an evolutionary perspective. In: Klein S, Roberts C, editors. Sex hormones and immunity to infection. Berlin: Springer; 2010. pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02155-8_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Calero-Riestra M, García JT. Sex-dependent differences in avian malaria prevalence and consequences of infections on nestling growth and adult condition in the Tawny pipit, Anthus campestris. Malar J. 2016;15. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-1079-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4: 133–142. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol. 2010;1: 3–14. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2009.00001.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Rodríguez G. Generalized linear statistical models. University P, editor. Lect Notes. 2001. Available: http://chianti.ucsd.edu/~rsaito/ENTRY1/WEB_RS3/PDF/Learn/Statistics/generalized_linear_model_RodriguezG_lecnote21.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Team RDC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020. Available: https://www.r-project.org/ [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kirk W Deitsch, Fernando Garcia-Arenal

1 Mar 2021

Dear Dr. Ferraguti,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A field test of the dilution effect hypothesis in four avian multi–host pathogens" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Dear Dr. Ferraguti,

Two experts have now reviewed your resubmitted work “A field test of the dilution effect hypothesis in four avian multi–host pathogens” (PPATHOGENS-D-21-00275). These are the same scientists that reviewed previous version of this work.

While Reviewer 2 is happy with the new version, Reviewer 1 still has relevant concerns regarding the presentation of ecological concepts and how they relate to the objectives and results of the study. He/she also underlines that the text is often difficult. Reviewer 1 indicates that all his/her concerns ca be solved in a rewrite of the text, and in many of the very detailed minor comments provided he/she proposes solutions. I want to underscore that the English needs to be thoroughly revised as in my opinion, and despite M. Lockwood, it is often imprecise and contains grammatical and idiomatic errors.

In addition to the reviewer comments, the authors sould also consider:

Lines 110-11: the relationship diversity-disease risk may also depend on the scale of the study.

Discussion: Because some of the pathogens studied infect other species, in which prevalence was not analysed, I would like to see a comment on the discussion about how prevalence in other hosts will affect the interpretation of the results.

I agree with Reviewer 1 and with previous comments fo Reveiwer 2, in that this is a study based on a rather unique data base, presenting relevant results and conclusions, and I think that if all the comments of Rev. 1 and mine are addressed it will make a very good paper.

Sincerely

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the 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

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Fernando Garcia-Arenal

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kirk Deitsch

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Dear Dr. Ferraguti,

Two experts have now reviewed your resubmitted work “A field test of the dilution effect hypothesis in four avian multi–host pathogens” (PPATHOGENS-D-21-00275). These are the same scientists that reviewed previous version of this work.

While Reviewer 2 is happy with the new version, Reviewer 1 still has relevant concerns regarding the presentation of ecological concepts and how they relate to the objectives and results of the study. He/she also underlines that the text is often difficult. Reviewer 1 indicates that all his/her concerns ca be solved in a rewrite of the text, and in many of the very detailed minor comments provided he/she proposes solutions. I want to underscore that the English needs to be thoroughly revised as in my opinion, and despite M. Lockwood, it is often imprecise and contains grammatical and idiomatic errors.

In addition to the reviewer comments, the authors sould also consider:

Lines 110-11: the relationship diversity-disease risk may also depend on the scale of the study.

Discussion: Because some of the pathogens studied infect other species, in which prevalence was not analysed, I would like to see a comment on the discussion about how prevalence in other hosts will affect the interpretation of the results.

I agree with Reviewer 1 and with previous comments fo Reveiwer 2, in that this is a study based on a rather unique data base, presenting relevant results and conclusions, and I think that if all the comments of Rev. 1 and mine are addressed it will make a very good paper.

Sincerely

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript brings together a number of interesting components of the dilution effect hypothesis (DEH), and is a timely and methodologically sound contribution. The prevalence of four pathogens estimated from avian species, is regressed against a number of explanatory variables that are expected to reveal a mechanistic understanding of the DEH. Prevalence in avian species is related to the richness, diversity, density, phylogenetic diversity, and evenness of host and vector species assemblage. The results showed a number of inconsistencies with key assumptions of the dilution effect hypothesis. The key finding was that the prevalence of most of the avian pathogens studied, exhibited a positive relationship with community parameters used commonly in DEH research. The study is novel and of broad interest because empirical data derived from a tractable study system is used to get at the mechanics of the relationship between biodiversity and disease risk.

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed a previous version of this manuscript. The authors have adequately addressed my comments and the manuscript has been substantially improved. I have no further comments.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: The manuscript covers a lot of ground by introducing many concepts developed by others, to explain mechanics of the DEH. At times, the reading was difficult work for me, and also likely for the uninitiated virologist not savvy in the terminology of community ecology. This comes about primarily due to the vagueness or incomplete explanation for key concepts introduced at the beginning of the manuscript. These issues can be rectified in a rewrite that provides specific references (e.g. point to, and give details of, the particular key finding of interest presented in a given reference), and explains more thoroughly the cited work already given. In particular, I found the premise of, and explanation for, additive and subtractive assembly incomplete, and difficult to integrate with the other concepts presented in the introduction, results, and discussion. These are major concerns. Specifics of minor concerns are given below.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Line 31: Suggestion. A succinct statement delineating the relevance of density- and frequency-dependent transmission in relation to pathogen-host encounters and the dilution effect hypotheses, would provide a general basis for developing the subsequent arguments that rely on variation in species density.

Line 49: ‘possessing’.

Line 52: Be specific when describing variables of relationships that were found to important. What parts of ‘biodiversity’ were regressed here. As the strength of the manuscript is its mechanistic perspective on the DEH, a conclusion commenting on this theme would be good; i.e., how did community composition, species identity, and abundance influence prevalence in avian hosts.

Line 89: Expression; “…reported in the wild”, or, have been observed in wild populations?

Line 96. “proposed by the dilution effect”, or, in the DEH…

Line 110: Non-experts may not know what community composition refers to, and how it differs from diversity (and structure). For example, composition typically separates the species identity and species abundance components of diversity.

Lines 117 to 128: I read this part several times, and the connection between the hypotheses of Rohr et al. (2020), and the analyses conducted in the manuscript are unclear. Rohr et al. (2020) states "When community (dis) assembly is substitutive, amplification can occur when the addition of individuals of new, competent host species reduce the density of less competent host species. Amplification or dilution can occur when competent hosts or non-competent hosts, respectively, are added to or subtracted from communities via the sampling effect (that is, more diverse communities are more likely to contain a host species that either strongly increases or decreases disease)". The authors provide little information (and no empirical data that I can see) on whether the addition of non-competent or competent hosts occurs in the study system.

Lines 145 to 142: This statement is not entirely correct. The Roche et al. (2013) model assumed that the most abundant vector and reservoir species had the highest susceptibility (i.e., not competence). In their model, competence was "modulated" (i.e., correlated) by susceptibility. The difference between susceptibility and competence is not trivial and the differences deserve attention because it may alter how the conclusions of the study are interpreted.

Line 149: The authors introduce the term ‘assembly’ that relates to successional pathways and the temporal changes in biological communities. This is clear enough, and the references to Rohr et al. (2020) set the conceptual background for expectations given either additive or subtractive assembly. However, I am not sure how these hypotheses fit with the analyses presented in the manuscript. I struggled to see a connection between the objectives of the study, broadly to look at avian prevalence as explained by the composition of the vector and host assemblages, and the hypotheses for subtractive and additive assembly. A rewrite should include a better explanation of this connection, if indeed one is intended.

Line 176: What are “all the factors”? Understanding “all the factors” is not likely.

Lines 183 to 185: I do not understand the meaning of this sentence.

Line 186: What do the authors mean by “evenness analysis for richness and diversity parameters”? Evenness is a parameter, not a type of analysis.

Lines 194 to 199: As I have understood the "additive" and "subtractive" hypotheses of assembly in respect to the relative proportions of competent to non-competent hosts (as presented in the background above: Rohr et al. 2020), I do not know how measuring correlations (e.g. vector richness vs. vector density) informs on the numbers of competent and non-competent hosts (or high/low susceptibility hosts), or whether this proportion, or the phenotype introduced during community assembly, is important to the direction of the manuscript. How does the correlation inform on the subtractive and additive hypotheses for assembly, and then, how do the mode(s) of assembly relate to the study system?

In the Methods, Lines 464 to 467; i.e., the mean (species?) relative (or total?) abundance of mosquitoes captured each day was calculated. How exactly does daily variation in the mean abundance inform on successional changes in the mosquito assemblage? And, how does it inform on the proportions of competent (i.e., to transmit) to non-competent host phenotypes? The references given for the work of Rohr et al. (2020) and Randolph and Dobson (2012) should direct the reader to specific aspects of each of these studies. I read them, and could not find an obvious connection. The work by Randolph and Dobson (2012) refers to theoretical (i.e., "in principle") outcomes of adding non-competent hosts to an assemblage, so the phenotype is known or assumed in this case. Given that the phenotype (i.e. non-competent) is assumed/known, decreases in encounters with other hosts [“humans”] can be expected. The absolute number of vectors is important, [“not the proportion of vectors infected”], but under the assumption that non-competent hosts have been added. Here, I am lost.

Line 200 to 204: Why are there no references to prevalence as the dependent variable? The Results section begins with an analysis of prevalence. It is not clear at this stage of the manuscript what the objectives of the study are, nor the hypotheses being tested; because there are no explicit statements to this effect.

Lines 210 to 232: The data are impressive, and the motivation to analyse the composition of assemblages as well as successional pathways is a very novel aspect of the manuscript. The introduction argued that community composition (taxonomic identity and their abundances) and diversity were important to separate, in understanding disease risk. This proposition is a strong component of the manuscript, but the regressions include largely independent variables for richness and diversity. Only one model speaks to composition (i.e., evenness). The results that point to the regression modelling are clear, but I am not sure what information I am supposed to gain from the other results reported here. Are they for the purposes of understanding the assembly hypotheses? Are the results of rarefaction of secondary importance? Rarefaction is typically used to address uncertainty in sample completeness and can be compared to the values of the raw observations in a Table somewhere, usually in the Supplementary Information. If the rarefaction results and mean values are of primary importance, the information would be easier to digest if it were presented in a compact, summary form that informs on their purpose. Do the mosquito abundance results and those referenced in the Ferraguti et al. (2016, 2017) papers, comprise the main comment on community composition made in the manuscript?

Lines 214 to 215: What does this mean: “and a rarefaction value of

4.54 (range 1.99 – 6.93), in each locality”? It reads like the same mean value was found in each locality.

Line 225: Another example of poor expression: “Vertebrate counts reported the total presence of…” Vertebrate counts do not report.

Line 236 and 247: Tables 1 and 2 include independent variables demographic variables (i.e., the population level), but I do not know its relevance to what has been introduced thus far. How do the demographic parameters fit into the general objectives and hypotheses?

Line 250: …models that included…

Line 260: Is this a regression of species richness and total abundance (i.e., total number of mosquitoes collected) at each site? This sentence appears to contradict the former.

Line 261 to 262: Is “site” the same as “locality”?

Line 281: It would be great to have a concise summary of the main finding in respect to how mechanics related to community composition influenced prevalence in the study system: i.e., “…separate the effects of biodiversity from those due to the presence of particular host species”. Initially in the discussion, there are many references to the work of others, but few in respect to the findings presented in the manuscript. The main findings appear to relate to the positive relationships between avian prevalence and parameters such as richness and diversity. This type of result does not live up to the direction of the study laid out in the introduction: “pathogen prevalence may be due to either the presence of key species or to the community composition rather than to any intrinsic property of biodiversity”. From that point in the introduction, the exciting topic of community assembly is introduced, thus raising the expectation of the reader beyond the typical disease-diversity paradigm. A change of emphasis in the discussion would help point out where the manuscript contributed most strongly to the field.

Line 298: In its current state, the main finding appears to be: “these results support the incidence of increased pathogen transmission in areas with a richer avian community contrary to the expectations of the DEH.” With all the analyses and results given about other hosts and vectors, is there not a main finding that can be related to the composition of the various assemblages?

Line 313 and 314: This relationship is interesting because it relates to composition (taxonomic identity and abundance). Are there any results that support this speculation?

Line 314: Is “community structure” supposed to be “community composition” here? The structure of a community is influenced by abiotic variables and so does not fit the context of the sentence.

Line 336: …than other species.

Lines 344 to 345: Which relationship exactly is being referred to? Is it prevalence in avian species as predicted by mammal density?

Lines 368 to 371: Randolf and Dobson (2012) frame infections rates in terms of vector abundance, not vector density, and host density. If vector density is not correlated with vector abundance, how is the comparison with the referenced work valid?

Line 381: It is not apparent to me how the study showed additive community assembly.

Lines 403 to 404: “pattern” or patterns; “those” or that?

Line 410: analysed

Line 418: I did not find information about substitutive assembly in these two references.

Line 536: I see no references in the introduction about why demographic variables are important predictors of risk.

Line 541: Richness is ordinal (unless rarefied).

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

References:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Decision Letter 1

Kirk W Deitsch, Fernando Garcia-Arenal

12 May 2021

Dear Dr. Figuerola,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A field test of the dilution effect hypothesis in four avian multi-host pathogens' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Fernando Garcia-Arenal

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kirk Deitsch

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

All comments made to the original version of the manuscript by reviewer 1 and by myself have been properly addressed by the pertinent modifications of the text. In my opinion the paper is much improved and much more readable. I think this study makes an important contribution.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

Kirk W Deitsch, Fernando Garcia-Arenal

8 Jun 2021

Dear Dr. Figuerola,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "A field test of the dilution effect hypothesis in four avian multi-host pathogens," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Results of the GLMMs testing the relationships between the prevalence of avian malaria Plasmodium, the related Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites (N = 2,588), and the and the seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544) and individual characteristics of house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian and mammal species density, richness (estimated as the raw number of different avian or mammal species registered at each sampling site), and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

    Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold; conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. Results of the GLMMs analysing the relationship between the prevalence of the two studied mosquito-borne pathogens: avian malaria Plasmodium (N = 2,588) and seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544) and the individual characteristics of the house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian and mammal species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different avian or mammal species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as evenness index), and vector species richness (measured as the raw number of different mosquito species captured at each sampling) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

    Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold. Conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. Results of the GLMMs testing the relationships between the prevalence of avian malaria Plasmodium, the related Haemoproteus and Leucocytozoon parasites (N = 2,588), and the seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544), and individual characteristics of house sparrows (age, sex, and month of capture), avian species density, richness (estimated as the raw number of different avian species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (estimated as avian phylogenetic diversity), mammal species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different mammal species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

    Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold; conditional and marginal relationships are in brackets; R2 variance are shown.

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. Results of the GLMMs analysing the relationship between the prevalence of the two mosquito–borne pathogens studied: avian malaria Plasmodium (N = 2,588) and seroprevalence of WNV (N = 2,544) and the individual characteristics of the house sparrows (age, sex and month of capture), avian species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different avian species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as the avian phylogenetic diversity), mammal species density, richness (measured from the raw number of different mammal species registered at each sampling site) and diversity (calculated as evenness index), and vector species richness (measured from the raw number of different mosquito species captured at each sampling) and diversity (calculated as evenness index).

    Significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) are highlighted in bold. Conditional and marginal (in brackets) R2 variance are shown.

    (PDF)

    S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet containing in separate sheets the numerical data used for the statistical analysis and for the figure preparation.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Text. Supporting information: methods and results.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data, including the complete dataset, are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES