Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37880680›Full record

ReviewParasites & vectors2023

Predicting the distribution of Ixodes ricinus and Dermacentor reticulatus in Europe: a comparison of climate niche modelling approaches.

Madeleine Noll, Richard Wall, Benjamin L Makepeace, Hannah Newbury, Lukasz Adaszek, René Bødker, Agustín Estrada-Peña, Jacques Guillot, Isabel Pereira da Fonseca, Julia Probst and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Parasites & vectors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Predicting the ecological niches ofFrontiers in tropical diseases · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Predicting the distribution ofParasitology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Madeleine NollInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. madeleine.noll@liverpool.ac.uk.
Richard WallSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Benjamin L MakepeaceInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Hannah NewburyMSD Animal Health, Walton, Milton Keynes, UK.
Lukasz AdaszekDepartment of Epizootiology and Clinic of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland.
René BødkerSection of Animal Welfare and Disease Control, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Agustín Estrada-PeñaDepartment of Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zaragoza, Saragossa, Spain.
Jacques GuillotDepartment of Dermatology-Parasitology-Mycology, École Nationale Vétérinaire, Oniris, Nantes, France.
Isabel Pereira da FonsecaCIISA-Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Julia ProbstInstitute for Parasitology, Centre for Infection Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Paul OvergaauwDepartment Population Health Sciences, Division of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Christina StrubeInstitute for Parasitology, Centre for Infection Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Fathiah ZakhamDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Stefania ZanetDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.
Hannah Rose VineerInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

MSD Animal Health E-00060140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ticks Ixodes ricinus and Dermacentor reticulatus are two of the most important vectors in Europe. Climate niche modelling has been used in many studies to attempt to explain their distribution and to predict changes under a range of climate change scenarios. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of different climate niche modelling approaches to explain the known distribution of I. ricinus and D. reticulatus in Europe.

methodsA series of climate niche models, using different combinations of input data, were constructed and assessed. Species occurrence records obtained from systematic literature searches and Global Biodiversity Information Facility data were thinned to different degrees to remove sampling spatial bias. Four sources of climate data were used: bioclimatic variables, WorldClim, TerraClimate and MODIS satellite-derived data. Eight different model training extents were examined and three modelling frameworks were used: maximum entropy, generalised additive models and random forest models. The results were validated through internal cross-validation, comparison with an external independent dataset and expert opinion.

resultsThe performance metrics and predictive ability of the different modelling approaches varied significantly within and between each species. Different combinations were better able to define the distribution of each of the two species. However, no single approach was considered fully able to capture the known distribution of the species. When considering the mean of the performance metrics of internal and external validation, 24 models for I. ricinus and 11 models for D. reticulatus of the 96 constructed were considered adequate according to the following criteria: area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve > 0.7; true skill statistic > 0.4; Miller's calibration slope 0.25 above or below 1; Boyce index > 0.9; omission rate < 0.15.

conclusionsThis comprehensive analysis suggests that there is no single 'best practice' climate modelling approach to account for the distribution of these tick species. This has important implications for attempts to predict climate-mediated impacts on future tick distribution. It is suggested here that climate variables alone are not sufficient; habitat type, host availability and anthropogenic impacts, not included in current modelling approaches, could contribute to determining tick presence or absence at the local or regional scale.

Indexed as

DermacentorIxodesAnimalsBiodiversityEcosystemEuropeClimate changeClimate nicheClimate niche modellingDermacentorIxodesSpecies distribution modellingTicks

Identifiers

PMID37880680
PMCPMC10601327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.