Figure 1.
Effect of different parameters on deer Anaplasma spp. ER.
(A) Analysis of deer ER as single host, under variable conditions of habitat fragmentation. (B–D) Effect of wild boar and deer density on deer ER at estimated 10%, 50% and 90% of ticks infesting wild boar.
Table 1.
Results of sensitivity analysis performed on deer ER and HSR obtained from simulated landscapes and study sites.
Figure 2.
Effect of habitat fragmentation on HSR.
The effect of habitat fragmentation (from 0.1, minimum assayed, to 1.0 maximum assayed) on HSR was modelled with respect to habitat perception by hosts.
Figure 3.
Empirical data collected from study sites.
(A) Map of Spain with the location of the study sites. (B) Wild boar and deer densities on each study site. (C) Deer seropositivity to Anaplasma spp. was determined as a measure of ER in each study site.
Figure 4.
Changes in HSR lead to variable deer ER outputs.
Modelled HSR and deer ER values were compared when obtained (A) under a common set of host habitat perception rules or (B) after re-distribution of hosts along vegetation patches according to empirical counts of animals at each study site. The results showed that modelled and empirical deer ER values were similar for conditions in (B) only.
Table 2.
Parameters of the model and ranges tested.
Figure 5.
The process of creation of two lattices with high (A) and low (B) habitat fragmentation for the development of the base parameters in the tick-host model.
The amount of suitable habitat (patches) is the same for both lattices (50%), and only fragmentation is changed (A: 0.8; B: 0.3). The resulting dispersal flux (patch traversability) of hosts in these lattices is included as colour lines depicting traversability from patch to patch, assuming maximum attractiveness for medium sized patches (10 ha) located at a distance of 100 m (i.e. low habitat perception, C, D) or maximum attractiveness for a small patch (0.1 ha) located at a distance of 1000 m (i.e. high habitat perception, E, F).
Figure 6.
Animal densities as derived from the lattices in Figure 5, and expressed as number of hosts/ha for (A) low fragmentation/low habitat perception, (B) low fragmentation/high habitat perception, (C) high fragmentation/low habitat perception, and (D) high fragmentation/high habitat perception.
High traversability conditions resulted in the accumulation of hosts in some patches, even under conditions of high habitat fragmentation.