Skip to main content
Download PDF

Spatiotemporal distribution, abundance, and host interactions of two invasive vectors of arboviruses, Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus, in Pennsylvania, USA

Parasites & Vectors volume 15, Article number: 36 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus, two invasive mosquito species in the United States, are implicated in the transmission of arboviruses. Studies have shown interactions of these two mosquito species with a variety of vertebrate hosts; however, regional differences exist and may influence their contribution to arbovirus transmission.

Methods

We investigated the distribution, abundance, host interactions, and West Nile virus infection prevalence of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus by examining Pennsylvania mosquito and arbovirus surveillance data for the period between 2010 and 2018. Mosquitoes were primarily collected using gravid traps and BG-Sentinel traps, and sources of blood meals were determined by analyzing mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequences amplified in PCR assays.

Results

A total of 10,878,727 female mosquitoes representing 51 species were collected in Pennsylvania over the 9-year study period, with Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus representing 4.06% and 3.02% of all collected mosquitoes, respectively. Aedes albopictus was distributed in 39 counties and Ae. japonicus in all 67 counties, and the abundance of these species increased between 2010 and 2018. Models suggested an increase in the spatial extent of Ae. albopictus during the study period, while that of Ae. japonicus remained unchanged. We found a differential association between the abundance of the two mosquito species and environmental conditions, percent development, and median household income. Of 110 Ae. albopictus and 97 Ae. japonicus blood meals successfully identified to species level, 98% and 100% were derived from mammalian hosts, respectively. Among 12 mammalian species, domestic cats, humans, and white-tailed deer served as the most frequent hosts for the two mosquito species. A limited number of Ae. albopictus acquired blood meals from avian hosts solely or in mixed blood meals. West Nile virus was detected in 31 pools (n = 3582 total number of pools) of Ae. albopictus and 12 pools (n = 977 total pools) of Ae. japonicus.

Conclusions

Extensive distribution, high abundance, and frequent interactions with mammalian hosts suggest potential involvement of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus in the transmission of human arboviruses including Cache Valley, Jamestown Canyon, La Crosse, dengue, chikungunya, and Zika should any of these viruses become prevalent in Pennsylvania. Limited interaction with avian hosts suggests that Ae. albopictus might occasionally be involved in transmission of arboviruses such as West Nile in the region.

Graphical Abstract

Background

The mosquito genus Aedes has garnered international attention in recent years after the emergence and rapid spread of Zika virus (ZIKV) infections in Central and South America, the Caribbean, and the state of Florida in the United States [1, 2]. Native to Asia, Aedes albopictus was first introduced into the United States in Texas in 1985 [3] and has since spread to 38 states [4, 5]. Also introduced from Asia, Aedes japonicus was first reported in the United States in Connecticut in 1997 [6, 7], New York and New Jersey in 1998 [8], and Pennsylvania in 1999 [9]. Aedes japonicus is now found in 33 states, [10, 11]. Both Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus are container-inhabiting mosquitoes that take advantage of natural and artificial containers and thrive in peridomestic environments [12]. The spread of both Aedes species is inextricably linked to these artificial containers (e.g., tires) transported across infrastructure (i.e., highways) [3, 13]. Their successful invasion is due in large part to their adaptability to a wide range of environmental conditions in temperate climates and human environments.

Not only have Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus successfully invaded temperate North America, but there is evidence to suggest that under certain conditions they may outcompete native mosquito species including Aedes triseriatus [14, 15]. It is also suggested that this species is outcompeting Aedes atropalpus in some areas of the United States due to shorter larval development periods [16]. Bearing highly adaptive traits and exhibiting competitive advantages over native mosquito species, Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus may alter mosquito biodiversity and indirectly influence the epidemiology of mosquito-borne diseases [10]. Co-occurrence of these two species has also affected interspecific competition, with Ae. albopictus generally outcompeting Ae. japonicus in larval habitats [17]. Although Ae. albopictus has been shown to be superior to Ae. japonicus in competing for food resources in larval habitats in the United States (particularly in artificial container habitats), higher overwintering survival and earlier hatching means that Ae. japonicus is able to exploit larval habitats before Ae. albopictus [15, 18]. Field observations suggest that Ae. albopictus are more abundant in urban and suburban areas while Ae. japonicus are more common in rural areas [12]. This distinction in habitat niche may be due to differences in temperature tolerance. Aedes japonicus is a temperate mosquito, primarily distributed in cooler latitudes in its native and invaded ranges [10]. Hot, dry summer conditions mediated by climate change and urban heat islands may negatively impact Ae. japonicus distribution, especially in highly urbanized areas, whereas these conditions are more favorable to increased populations of Ae. albopictus [19].

Mosquito–host interactions are important for assessing vectorial capacity in Aedes populations and estimating the risk of arbovirus transmission. Host interaction studies show that Ae. albopictus obtains blood meals predominantly from a variety of mammalian hosts including humans, domestic cats, brown rats, dogs, opossum, rabbits, deer, and squirrels. Human-derived blood meals have been identified in 50–100% of Ae. albopictus across many studies [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. However, opportunistic blood-feeding of this mosquito species from a wide variety of mammalian hosts has been reported in other investigations [28,29,30]. Aedes albopictus has also been reported to obtain blood meals from avian, reptilian, and amphibian hosts [21, 27, 28, 31,32,33,34,35]. Collectively, these studies indicate that Ae. albopictus interacts with a variety of host species and potentially contributes to epizootic-epidemic transmission of arboviruses in different regions.

Previous studies have demonstrated that Ae. japonicus is associated exclusively with mammalian hosts in blood-feeding [21, 29, 36,37,38,39,40,41] in North America. Multiple studies in the northeastern United States have found that white-tailed deer, the most abundant large mammal in the region, represent the majority of blood meals identified from Ae. japonicus [36,37,38,39]. But other mammalian hosts have also been identified including the domestic cat [29, 40], brown rat [29], opossum [38], cow [41], chipmunk [37], and horse [36, 38]. Opportunistic blood-feeding suggests that Ae. japonicus may be an important vector for arboviruses involving small and medium-sized mammalian hosts [29, 42]. The potential for Ae. japonicus to act as a “bridge vector” for West Nile virus (WNV) cannot be entirely discounted, because it has been shown to feed on both humans [29, 37, 38, 40] and birds in the laboratory [43] and in the field [44], albeit at lower frequencies.

Aedes albopictus and Ae. japonicus are vectors for viral pathogens causing diseases in animals and humans. Multiple arboviruses have been isolated from field-collected Ae. albopictus including Cache Valley virus (CVV), eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV), Jamestown Canyon virus (JCV), La Crosse virus (LACV), and WNV [45, 46]. Local transmission of other arboviruses including dengue (DENV), chikungunya (CHIKV), and ZIKV by established populations of Ae. albopictus has occurred in temperate areas [47,48,49,50,51,52].

Aedes japonicus in its native range has been implicated in Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) outbreaks [53]. In laboratory studies, Ae. japonicus has been shown to be a competent vector of LACV [54], WNV [55], St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV) [56], EEEV [57], DENV, CHIKV [58], and Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) [59]. In the United States, WNV [60,61,62], LACV [40, 42], and CVV [63] have been isolated from field-collected Ae. japonicus.

Urban landscapes impact the spatial variability of mosquito abundance [35], community composition [12], mosquito–host interactions [25, 30, 33, 34], and infection rates [64, 65]. Because of their vector competence, close association with and blood-feeding on humans, Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus are considered vectors of public health importance. Thus, a better understanding of the impact of urban landscapes on mosquito abundance, blood-feeding, and infection status of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus is vital for mitigating the risk of human infection with arboviruses. WNV is of particular concern as it is the most common arbovirus in the United States and is the only arbovirus known to cause significant human disease in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania in 2018, the incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease (0.74 per 100,000) was > 35% higher than the median national incidence and was highest among New England and mid-Atlantic states [66]. In this study, our objectives were to (1) explore spatial and temporal changes in the distribution and abundance of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus, (2) assess the influence of urban landscapes on their abundance and blood-feeding patterns, and (3) investigate Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus infection status with WNV in Pennsylvania between 2010 and 2018.

Methods

Mosquito collection

Mosquitoes were collected in Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2018 as part of a statewide arbovirus surveillance program (Fig. 1). Most adult collections were made from April through October, with some occurring outside that time frame, including collections made from winter hibernacula. Surveillance was conducted in all 67 counties from over 19,000 unique collection sites. The surveillance program had a heavy emphasis on the detection of WNV in Culex mosquitoes in urban and suburban environs. Therefore, mosquito collections were largely, but not exclusively, focused near human population centers. Surveillance sites included wastewater treatment facilities, manure pits on farms, stormwater retention and detention basins, green spaces, wetlands, residential properties, salvage yards, tire recycling facilities, and other locations.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of Pennsylvania in the northeastern United States and a traps containing Ae. albopictus, b traps containing Ae. japonicus, and c locations of blood-fed Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus

Full size image

Trapping methodologies included the use of gravid traps baited most frequently with a hay/lactalbumin infusion (2800 Series, BioQuip products, Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) miniature light traps baited with carbon dioxide (John W. Hock Co., Gainesville, FL, USA), Biogents BG-Sentinel traps baited with BG-Lure and carbon dioxide (Biogents, Regensburg, Germany), aspiration with handheld aspirators (John W. Hock Co., Gainesville, FL, USA), Fay-Prince omnidirectional traps baited with carbon dioxide (John W. Hock Co., Gainesville, FL, USA), Mosquito Magnet traps baited with carbon dioxide and 1-octen-3-ol (American Biophysics Corp., Kingstown, RI, USA), resting boxes (constructed by Department of Environmental Protection staff), and Zumba traps baited with carbon dioxide (ISCA Technologies, Riverside, CA, USA). Traps were typically set overnight and collected the following morning. Biogents BG-Sentinel traps were frequently run for 24 h to increase collection success for Ae. albopictus, which can be highly active during the day. In some cases, particularly with the Mosquito Magnet, traps were allowed to run for multiple days before collection. Mosquitoes collected from gravid and Biogents BG-Sentinel traps represented 94.6% of all collected mosquitoes. Mosquitoes were either shipped to the Department of Environmental Protection laboratory overnight on dry ice or delivered to the lab alive and euthanized in a −80 °C freezer.

Mosquito processing

Mosquitoes were morphologically identified, sorted, enumerated, and pooled (vector spp.) on a chill table with the aid of a Leica MZ7.5 stereomicroscope (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany) using descriptive keys [67,68,69]. Specimens were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level, typically species level, but often grouped by genus or species groups (e.g., Culex pipiens/restuans) for purposes of pooling specimens to maximize virus testing efficiency. Specimens retained for blood meal analysis were placed in 1.5 ml microtubes and labeled accordingly. If multiple engorged specimens were collected from a single sample, they were retained communally in the same tube unless the abdomens were visibly damaged, in which case those specimens were placed in tubes singly to avoid cross-contamination. The tubes were then placed in a − 80 °C freezer until further processing. Aedes japonicus with visible blood in their abdomens were retained from 2010 to 2015, while Ae. albopictus were retained in 2018.

Pathogen testing (virus isolation and identification)

Specimens retained for the intent of virus testing were pooled into 11 ml polypropylene tubes (Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany) by species (or other relevant taxon) of typically up to 100, but occasionally up to 200, specimens per tube and linked with their associated collection data. Mosquito pools were homogenized in tubes containing four 4.5 mm-diameter copper-coated steel beads and 1–2.5 ml BA-1 diluent [70]. Tubes were placed in a multi-tube vortexer (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for 60 s and the homogenate centrifuged (Allegra 25R centrifuge, Beckman Coulter, Inc., Brea, CA, USA) at 3571×g for 10 min at 4 °C. Subsamples of mosquito pool homogenates (220 µl) were then transferred to a 96-well S-block containing 280 µl lysis buffer AL/carrier RNA mix and Qiagen protease and incubated at 56 °C for 10 min. All assays included no template controls [Buffer AVE, RNase-free water with 0.04% NaN3 (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany)], negative control (real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) [RT-PCR]-negative mosquito pool homogenate), and positive control (fivefold dilution of virus-infected tissue culture). Nucleic acids were purified using the QIAamp Virus BioRobot MDx Kit (Qiagen) on the Qiagen BioRobot Universal System following manufacturer-recommend procedures and eluted in 75 µl AVE buffer (Qiagen).

RT-PCR assays to detect WNV in pools targeted the 3′ untranslated region [70], and SLEV and LACV assays targeted the NS5 gene and M segment of the viral genome using primers and probes, respectively [71, 72]. A second primer/probe set targeting the envelop (E) gene was used as necessary for confirmatory tests [70]. Probes were labeled with 5′-6-carboxyfluorescein (FAM) reporter dye and 3′-6-carboxytetramethylrhodamine (TAMRA) quencher (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

Reaction mixtures contained 0.80 µM of each primer, 0.20 µM probe, 8 µl 2× qScript One-Step master mix, Low ROX (Quantabio, Beverly, MA, USA), 0.32 μl qScript One-Step reverse transcriptase, 7.2 μl nuclease-free water, and 4 µl RNA template in 20 μl total reaction volume. RT-PCR was performed using the 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) with the following cycling conditions: 48 °C for 10 min followed by 95 °C for 5 min and 40 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s and 60 °C for 1 min. Samples were considered positive for cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤ 38, and samples with low viral loads, i.e., Ct > 38, were confirmed by targeting the E gene.

Blood meal identification in engorged Ae. japonicus and Ae. albopictus mosquitoes

To identify the sources of blood meals in engorged mosquitoes, abdomens were individually dissected on microscope slides using sterile razor blades with the aid of a stereomicroscope. Extraction of genomic DNA from the mosquito abdomens was performed using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) or DNAzol BD (Molecular Research Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA) according to the manufacturer’s suggested protocols with modifications described elsewhere [30, 37, 73, 74]. PCR assays on extracted DNA were conducted using primers based on the vertebrate mitochondrial cytochrome b gene [73, 75, 76] and Taq PCR Core Kit (Qiagen). DNA samples isolated from the blood of several vertebrate species were used in PCR reactions as positive control [74]. UltraPure DNase/RNase-free-molecular biology-grade distilled water (Invitrogen by Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY, USA) was used as negative control. Detailed PCR protocols including reaction mixtures and thermal cycling conditions have been described elsewhere [73, 76]. PCR-amplified products were purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen) and sequenced in forward and reverse directions using Sanger sequencing on a 3730xl DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) at the Keck Sequencing Facility (Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA). ChromasPro version 1.7.5 (Technelysium Pty Ltd., Tewantin, Australia) was used to annotate the sequences. Sequences were compared to the sequences in the NCBI GenBank (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&LINK_LOC=blasthome) using the BLASTn search tool. A positive identification was made when > 97% identity was attained between the query and subject sequence.

Statistical analysis

Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is considered the most appropriate estimate of infection rate when pool size varies [77]. To estimate annual infection rates across Pennsylvania, we calculated the MLE as previously described [78] for all mosquito species that had at least one positive pool. Further, we calculated infection rates using MLE per 1000 mosquitoes by location for Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus.

To explore relationships between urban landscapes and Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus abundance, we accessed spatially explicit, freely available data on development (DEV) and median household income (MHI). The 2016 National Land Cover Database classification was simplified into four classes characterizing water, developed, undeveloped, and agricultural land cover [30]. In ArcGIS, we calculated the proportion of developed land within a radius of 200 m of each trap location to measure the influence of urban landscapes on Aedes mosquitoes (Fig. 2). For each census tract in Pennsylvania, we accessed the United States Census 2010 estimates of MHI (US Census Bureau 2010, Table S1903). In ArcGIS, we extracted this estimate of MHI at each trap location (Fig. 2). We standardized the environmental conditions, the DEV and MHI, across all trap locations by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Explanatory variables percent development derived from the National Land Cover Database (a) and median household income (b) in Pennsylvania

Full size image

We used contingency tables to compare abundance and blood meals across environmental conditions split at the mean, and generalized linear mixed effects models (GLMM) to evaluate how the urban landscape, DEV and MHI, influences Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus abundance (family = Poisson), blood-feeding (family = binomial), and WNV infection rates (family = Poisson). We used mixed-model regression to accommodate the temporal structure of the data, with year as a random effect. All statistical analyses were completed using R Statistical Software version 3.6.2 [79] and maps were created in ArcGIS version 10.8 (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA).

Results

Across all trap types, a total of 10,878,727 female mosquitoes were collected between 2010 and 2018. The most frequently collected species were Cx. restuans (42.58%; n = 4,631,831) and Cx. pipiens (25.50%; n = 2,774,163), together with those identified as either Culex species (12.48%; n = 1,358,060), comprising 80.56% (n = 8,764,054) of the total collection (Table 1). Aedes albopictus represented 4.06% (n = 441,542) and Ae. japonicus represented 3.02% (n = 328,438) of all mosquitoes collected between 2010 and 2018 (Table 1). Gravid traps were by far the most common trap types used, representing 85% of all traps, followed by BG-Sentinel traps (9.6%).

Table 1 Number of adult female mosquitoes collected from trap locations in Pennsylvania between 2010 and 2018
Full size table

Temporal and spatial changes in the abundance of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus

The abundance of Ae. albopictus (odds ratio [OR] = 1.150; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.147, 1.154]; P < 0.001) and Ae. japonicus (OR = 1.124; 95% CI = [1.123, 1.126]; P < 0.001) increased between 2010 and 2018 (Fig. 3). We detected Ae. albopictus in 39 counties and Ae. japonicus in all 67 counties in Pennsylvania (Fig. 1a and b). The models suggest that the spatial extent of Ae. albopictus increased (OR = 1.084; 95% CI = [1.03, 1.141]; P = 0.002) while the spatial extent of Ae. japonicus did not change (OR = 0.993; 95% CI = [0.961, 1.026]; P = 0.667) between 2010 and 2018.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Aedes albopictus (left) and Ae. japonicus (right) total abundance divided by trap nights across gravid trap sites in Pennsylvania 2010–2018

Full size image

Influence of urban landscape on the abundance of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus

We found that Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus were associated with environmental conditions, DEV and MHI. Aedes albopictus abundance was positively associated with DEV (OR = 2.666; 95% CI = [2.623, 2.704]; P < 0.001) and MHI (OR = 1.059; 95% CI = [1.048, 1.070]; P < 0.001) (Table 2). The interaction between DEV and MHI was also significant, and areas of higher DEV (above the mean) and lower MHI (below the mean) had the greatest abundance of Ae. albopictus (OR = 0.749; 95% CI = [0.741, 0.758]; P < 0.001) (Fig. 4). Aedes japonicus abundance was negatively associated with DEV (OR = 0.951; 95% CI = [0.948, 0.955]: P < 0.001) and MHI (OR = 0.781; 95% CI = [0.777, 0.784]: P < 0.001) (Table 2) and was abundant across all urban environments, with the highest abundance in areas with lower MHI (below the mean) compared to other areas (OR = 0.917; 95% CI = [0.912, 0.921]; P < 0.001) (Fig. 4).

Table 2 Poisson mixed-effect regression model testing the effect of development (DEV), median household income (MHI), and the interaction between development and median household income (DEV × MHI) on Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus collected in gravid traps in Pennsylvania 2010–2018
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Aedes albopictus and Ae. japonicus abundance across urban landscapes, percent development and median household income, both stratified at the mean

Full size image

Blood meal analysis results and influence of urban landscape on blood-feeding patterns

A total of 187 engorged Ae. albopictus from 85,824 (0.21%) collected in 2018 were subjected to blood meal analysis. Of these, 58.82% (n = 110) had viable results. Most blood meals were identified as a single host 93.64% (n = 103). Across single and mixed blood meal results, most included mammalian blood 98.18% (n = 108); the three most common hosts were domestic cat, human, and Virginia opossum, representing 43.64% (n = 48), 28.18% (n = 31), and 13.64% (n = 15) of all blood meals analyzed, respectively. Avian blood was identified in 7.27% (n = 8) of blood meals analyzed (Table 3). Of the 181,133 Ae. japonicus collected between 2010 and 2015, just 97 contained visible blood meals (0.05%). All Ae. japonicus fed on mammals, and the most common host was white-tailed deer, representing 79.38% (n = 77) of all blood meals analyzed (Table 4).

Table 3 Number and percentage of avian- and mammalian-derived blood meals from Aedes albopictus collected in Pennsylvania, 2018
Full size table
Table 4 Number and percentage of mammalian-derived blood meals from Aedes japonicus collected in Pennsylvania, 2010–2015
Full size table

To investigate the influence of urban landscapes on Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus blood-feeding, we performed logistic regression with DEV, MHI, and the interaction between these two variables included in the models. We found that Ae. albopictus fed more on domestic cats in more highly developed areas with lower MHI and fed more on humans in less developed areas with lower MHI (Table 5). The number of identified blood meals from opossums and white-tailed deer were not sufficient to discern differences in host feeding across urban landscapes. We found that Ae. japonicus fed more on white-tailed deer in less developed areas (Table 5).

Table 5 Logistic regression results (odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and significance level) for Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus blood-feeding
Full size table

Infection rates of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus

Between 2010 and 2018, a total of 215,670 pools comprising 9,187,270 mosquitoes across 25 species were tested for WNV, and a subset were tested for LACV and SLEV. The only arbovirus detected was WNV, which was identified in 10 species including in Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus mosquito pools. We calculated the annual MLE for all species that had at least one positive pool (Additional file 1: Table S1). Just 31 of 3582 Ae. albopictus and 12 of 977 Ae. japonicus pools were positive for WNV. Overall, we found that Ae. albopictus had a WNV infection rate of 0.14 (95% CI = [0.10, 0.20]) and Ae. japonicus had a WNV infection rate of 0.55 (95% CI = [0.32, 0.96]).

To investigate the influence of urban landscapes on the MLE of WNV infection rates of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus blood-feeding, we performed generalized linear regression with percent DEV and MHI, and the interaction between these two variables included in the models. Aedes albopictus had higher WNV infection rates in areas of lower DEV and higher MHI, while Ae. japonicus had higher WNV infection rates in areas of lower DEV and lower MHI compared to other areas (Table 6). While we found a positive association between Ae. japonicus WNV infection rates and MHI, the highest infection rates were in areas of low DEV and low MHI (Fig. 5).

Table 6 Generalized linear regression model (family = Poisson) testing the effect of development (DEV), median household income (MHI), and the interaction between development and median household income (DEV × MHI) on the maximum likelihood estimation of West Nile virus infection rates of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus in Pennsylvania, 2010–2018
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Aedes albopictus and Ae. japonicus West Nile Virus infection rates across urban landscapes, percent development and median household income, both stratified at the mean

Full size image

Discussion

This study provides insight into the distribution, abundance, vector–host interactions, and WNV infection rates of two invasive vectors of arboviruses, Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus, in Pennsylvania. During the study period, 2010–2018, the spatial extent and abundance of Ae. albopictus in Pennsylvania increased and the abundance of Ae. japonicus also increased. One explanation for the observed increase in the spatial extent of Ae. albopictus but not Ae. japonicus is that the sampling was conducted largely in urban/suburban habitats, which are more conducive to Ae. albopictus than to Ae. japonicus. A second possibility is that Ae. japonicus has had more time to distribute across the state. As early as 2001, Ae. japonicus was common in all 67 counties in Pennsylvania, whereas Ae. albopictus was relatively rare.

Identification of greater than 98% of Ae. albopictus and 100% of Ae. japonicus blood meals acquired from mammalian hosts in this study is in concert with the results of other studies. Studies have shown the percentage of Ae. albopictus mammalian-derived blood meals between 71 and 100% [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] and between 85 and 100% for Ae. japonicus [21, 29, 36,37,38,39,40,41, 44].

We found frequent interactions of Ae. albopictus with humans (27%) and domestic cats (44%) as hosts in our study. While some studies have identified these two mammalian species as the primary hosts for Ae. albopictus (between 61 and 100%) [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27, 30], other studies have reported that 19% and 35% of blood meals for Ae. albopictus originated from cottontail rabbits in Missouri [31] and in multiple states (Missouri, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, and Louisiana) [28], respectively. A study in Baltimore, Maryland reported that 72% of blood meals came from rats [29].

Here we found 4% of Ae. japonicus blood meals acquired from humans and 79% obtained from white-tailed deer. One study in Belgium found that 60% of Ae. japonicus blood meals originated from humans [41]. However, other studies have shown mammals other than humans to be the primary source of blood meal. In Maryland, 50% of blood meals originated from rats [29], and multiple studies have shown that most blood meals (53–100%) were derived from white-tailed deer [36,37,38,39]. The frequency of white-tailed deer as hosts for Ae. japonicus in these studies is, at least in part, an indication of the abundance of this vertebrate species in these study locations.

Domestic cats in Pennsylvania have not been shown to be infected with arboviruses that infect humans. However, infection of white-tailed deer with WNV, EEEV, LACV, and SLEV in Pennsylvania [80] and with WNV and SLEV in neighboring New Jersey has been reported [81]. White-tailed deer have also been shown to be amplifying hosts of CVV and JCV [82, 83]. In areas with abundant populations of white-tailed deer, they are often targeted by mosquitoes [36]. In Pennsylvania, white-tailed deer support Ae. japonicus populations through ample blood meals and have been shown to be infected with arboviruses that can infect humans [80].

Only 7.3% of Ae. albopictus obtained blood meals from avian hosts exclusively or in mixed blood meals. Most other studies have also shown birds to be infrequent hosts for Ae. albopictus [21, 28, 30, 32, 34]. However, one study in a forested area of China found that avian blood was detected almost as frequently as human blood [84]. Studies in urban areas have also found Ae. albopictus to feed on birds; in Missouri, 21% [31] and in Korea, 26% of blood meals were from birds [27]. We did not find any evidence of Ae. japonicus avian blood-feeding, which is in accord with most other studies [29, 36,37,38,39,40,41]. Only one study conducted at an urban zoo in Switzerland found avian blood-feeding. While most Ae. japonicus fed on mammals (84.7%), the remaining 15.3% of blood meals originated from birds [44].

In this study we explored the importance of urban development on Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus abundance and blood-feeding. We found greater abundance of Ae. albopictus in areas of higher DEV, while more Ae. japonicus were found in areas of lower DEV (Table 2). Aedes albopictus and Ae. japonicus have previously been shown to occupy slightly different niches, with Ae. albopictus more abundant in urban and Ae. japonicus in rural areas [12]. Adult Ae. japonicus show a preference for heavily vegetated areas regardless of the landscape matrix, i.e., agricultural, rural, suburban, or urban [11]. We also found that MHI was significantly related to the abundance of these two mosquito species, with more Ae. albopictus found in areas of high MHI and Ae. japonicus in areas of low MHI (Table 2). We did find a significant interactive effect between percent DEV and MHI, such that the highest Ae. japonicus abundance was in areas of low DEV and low MHI (Table 2; Fig. 4). It is interesting that we found higher Ae. albopictus abundance in areas of higher MHI in Pennsylvania while other studies have shown higher Ae. albopictus abundance in areas with lower MHI [35, 85]. Differences in the relationship of Aedes mosquitoes to DEV and MHI across studies may be driven by variability in container habitat and vegetation across socioeconomic status among other factors [35].

Aedes albopictus fed more on domestic cats in more highly developed areas with lower MHI and fed more on humans in less developed areas with lower MHI (Table 5). Aedes japonicus fed more on white-tailed deer in less developed areas. Among other factors, these differences in host feeding likely reflect the variation in availability of hosts across urban environments, where blood-feeding frequency can vary by environmental characteristics [30].

The paucity or lack of avian-derived blood meals in field-collected Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus could be due the proximity of the traps to the ground, which may not capture Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus that feed on birds, or simply the difficulty in collecting sufficient number of engorged mosquitoes [29, 38]. In this study, just 0.21% of Ae. albopictus and 0.05% of Ae. japonicus sampled were blood-engorged. Although low, we did find that 0.14 per 1000 (0.01%) of Ae. albopictus and 0.55 per 1000 (0.06%) of Ae. japonicus were infected with WNV. Because birds are viewed as the principal reservoir and amplification hosts of WNV, these aforementioned factors may underlie the limitations associated with a relatively small number of engorged mosquitoes analyzed in this study (and by others) and detection of avian-derived blood meals rather than a true absence of avian feeding. Alternatively, it may be possible for Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus to acquire WNV from mammals such as white-tailed deer or eastern chipmunk, as has been suggested by other studies [37, 38].

WNV has been isolated from field-collected Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus in various regions of the United States [45, 61, 62, 86,87,88]. Isolation of arboviruses including CVV, LACV, JCV, and EEEV has also been reported from wild-caught Ae. albopictus [45, 46] and LACV and CVV from Ae. japonicus [40, 42, 63] in the United States. The emergence of LACV has been linked to Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus in the Appalachian region of the United States [15]. Human-derived blood meals in concert with the detection of WNV from field-collected Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus in Pennsylvania suggest the potential roles these mosquitoes play as bridge vectors in WNV transmission to humans. More research is needed to investigate titers of WNV and other arboviruses in Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus to determine whether these field-infected mosquitoes can also transmit this arbovirus.

We also investigated whether WNV infection rates in Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus varied with DEV and MHI in Pennsylvania. The WNV infection rate of both species was higher in areas of low DEV. However, Ae. albopictus infection rates were higher in areas of high MHI, while Ae. japonicus infection rates were higher in areas of low MHI. It is important to note that Ae. japonicus WNV infection rates were highest in areas of low DEV and low MHI (Fig. 5). A recent study in Baltimore, Maryland found that WNV infection rates were negatively associated with mean neighborhood income [65]. The limitation of the present study in encountering very few WNV-positive pools of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus highlights the need for further research in order to draw definitive conclusions about the relationship between these urban characteristics and WNV infection prevalence in these invasive Aedes mosquitoes.

Conclusion

Better understanding of the distribution, abundance, infection prevalence, and host interaction of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus in nature is vital for assessing their vectorial capacity and contribution to arbovirus transmission in different virus foci. Our study indicates widespread distribution, high abundance, range expansion, and frequent interactions of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus with mammalian hosts, including humans, and highlights their potential for transmission of arboviruses to humans in the region. Avian-derived blood meals in Ae. albopictus, albeit at lower frequency, and infection with arboviruses in field-collected mosquitoes also suggest that this mosquito species might occasionally serve as a bridge vector of WNV to humans and other mammals in the region.

Availability of data and materials

Data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its additional file. Additional data may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Campos GS, Bandeira AC, Sardi SI. Zika virus outbreak, Bahia, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21(10):1885–6. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2110.150847.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Lessler J, Chaisson LH, Kucirka LM, Bi Q, Grantz K, Salje H, et al. Assessing the global threat from Zika virus. Science. 2016; 353(6300). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8160.

  3. Paupy C, Delatte H, Bagny L, Corbel V, Fontenille D. Aedes albopictus, an arbovirus vector: from the darkness to the light. Microbes Infect. 2009;11:1177–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2009.05.005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kraemer MUG, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne A, Shearer FM, Brady OJ, et al. The global compendium of Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus occurrence. Sci Data. 2015;2:150035. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hahn MB, Eisen L, McAllister J, Savage HM, Mutebi JP, Eisen RJ. Updated reported distribution of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti and Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in the United States, 1995–2016. J Med Entomol. 2016;54:1420–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjx088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Munstermann LE, Andreadis TG. Aedes japonicus in Connecticut. Vector Ecol Newsl. 1999;30:7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Andreadis TG, Anderson JF, Munstermann LE, Wolfe RJ, Florin DA. Discovery, distribution, and abundance of the newly introduced mosquito Ochlerotatus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Connecticut, USA. J Med Entomol. 2001;38:774–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Peyton EL, Campbell SR, Candeletti TM, Romanowski M, Crans WJ. Aedes (Finlaya) japonicus japonicus (Theobold), a new introduction into the United States. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1999;15:238–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fonseca DM, Campbell S, Crans WJ, Mogi M, Miyagi I, Toma T, et al. Aedes (Finlaya) japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae), a newly recognized mosquito in the United States: analyses of genetic variation in the United States and putative source populations. J Med Entomol. 2001;38:135–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaufman MG, Fonseca DM. Invasive biology of Aedes japonicus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae). Annu Rev Entomol. 2014;59:31–49. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kampen H, Werner D. Out of the bush: the Asian bush mosquito Aedes japonicus japonicus (Theobold, 1901) (Diptera, Culicidae) becomes invasive. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bartlett-Healy K, Unlu I, Obenauer P, Highes T, Healy S, Crepeau TM, et al. Larval mosquito habitat utilization and community dynamics of Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2012;49(4):813–24. https://doi.org/10.1603/ME11031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Egizi A, Kiser J, Abadam C, Fonseca DM. The hitchhiker’s guide to becoming invasive: exotic mosquitoes spread across a U.S. state by human transport not autonomous flight. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:3033–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alto BW. Interspecific larval competition between invasive Aedes japonicus and native Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) and adult longevity. J Med Entomol. 2011;48:232–42. https://doi.org/10.1603/ME09252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leisnham PT, Juliano SA. Impacts of climate, land use, and biological invasion on the ecology of immature Aedes mosquitoes: implications for La Crosse emergence. EcoHealth. 2012;9:217–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0773-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaufman MG, Stanuszek WW, Brouhard EA, Knepper RG, Walker ED. Establishment of Aedes japonicus japonicus and its colonization of container habitats in Michigan. J Med Entomol. 2012;49(6):1307–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Armistead JS, Arias JR, Nishimura N, Lounibos LP. Interspecific larval competition between Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in northern Virginia. J Med Entomol. 2008;45:629–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Armistead JS, Nishimura N, Arias JR, Lounibos LP. Community ecology of container mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virginia following invasion by Aedes japonicus. J Med Entomol. 2012;49(6):1318–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mogi M, Armruster PA, Nobuko T. Differences in responses to urbanization between invasive mosquitoes, Aedes japonicus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Aedes albopictus, in their native range. Japan J Med Entomol. 2020;57:104–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjz145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ponlawat A, Harrington LC. Blood feeding patterns of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Thailand. J Med Entomol. 2005;42:844–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/42.5.844.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sawabe K, Isawa H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, Roychoudhury S, Higa Y, et al. Host-feeding habits of Culex pipiens and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) collected at the urban and suburban residential areas of Japan. J Med Entomol. 2010;47:442–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/47.3.442.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Muñoz J, Eritja R, Alcaide M, Montalvo T, Soriguer RC, Figuerola J. Host-feeding patterns of native Culex pipiens and invasive Aedes albopictus mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in urban zones from Barcelona. Spain J Med Entomol. 2011;48:956–60. https://doi.org/10.1603/ME11016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kamgang B, Nchoutpouen E, Simard F, Paupy C. Notes on the blood-feeding behavior of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Cameroon. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Egizi A, Healy SP, Fonseca DM. Rapid blood meal scoring in anthropophilic Aedes albopictus and application of PCR blocking to avoid pseudogenes. Infect Genet Evol. 2013;16:122–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2013.01.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Faraji A, Egizi A, Fonseca DM, Unlu I, Crepeau T, Healy SP, et al. Comparative host feeding patterns of the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, in urban and suburban Northeastern USA and implications for disease transmission. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e3037. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003037.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kek R, Hapuarachchi HC, Chung CY, Humaidi MB, Razak MA, Chiang S, et al. Feeding host range of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) demonstrates its opportunistic host-seeking behavior in rural Singapore. J Med Entomol. 2014;51:880–4. https://doi.org/10.1603/ME13213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim H, Yu HM, Lim HW, Yang SC, Roh JY, Chang KS, et al. Host-feeding pattern and dengue virus detection of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) captured in an urban park in Korea. J Asia Pac Entomol. 2017;20:809–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2017.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Niebylski ML, Savage HM, Nasci RS, Craig GB Jr. Blood hosts of Aedes albopictus in the United States. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1994;10:447–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goodman H, Egizi A, Fonseca DM, Leisnham PT, LaDeau SL. Primary blood-hosts of mosquitoes are influenced by social and ecological conditions in a complex urban landscape. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:218. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2779-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Little EAH, Harriott OT, Akaratovic KI, Kiser JP, Abadam CF, Shepard JF, et al. Host interactions of Aedes albopictus, an invasive vector of arboviruses, in Virginia, USA. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(2): e0009173. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Savage HM, Niebylski ML, Smith GC, Mitchell CJ, Craig GB. Host-feeding patterns of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) at a temperate North American site. J Med Entomol. 1993;30:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/30.1.27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Richards SL, Ponnusamy L, Unnasch TR, Hassan HK, Apperson CS. Host-feeding patterns of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in relation to availability of human and domestic animals in suburban landscapes of central North Carolina. J Med Entomol. 2006;43:543–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/43.3.543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Valerio L, Marini F, Bongiorno G, Facchinelli L, Pombi M, Caputo B, et al. Host-feeding patterns of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in urban and rural contexts within Rome Province, Italy. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010;10:291–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2009.0007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sivan A, Shriram AN, Sunish IP, Vidhya PT. Host-feeding pattern of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in heterogeneous landscapes of South Andaman, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Parasitol Res. 2015;114:3539–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-015-4634-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Little EAH, Diehler D, Leisnham PT, Jordan R, Wilson S, LaDeau SL. Socio-ecological mechanisms supporting high densities of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Baltimore, MD. J Med Entomol. 2017;54:1183–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjx103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Apperson CS, Hassan HK, Harrison BA, Savage HM, Aspen SE, Farajollahi A, et al. Host feeding patterns of established and potential mosquito vectors of West Nile virus in the Eastern United States. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2004;4:71–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/15036604773083013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Molaei G, Andreadis TG, Armstrong PM, Diuk-Wasser M. Host-feeding patterns of potential mosquito vectors in Connecticut, USA: Molecular analysis of bloodmeals from 23 species of Aedes, Anopheles, Culex, Coquillettidia, Psorophora, and Uranotaenia. J Med Entomol. 2008;45:1143–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Molaei G, Farajollahi A, Scott JJ, Gaugler R, Andreadis TG. Human bloodfeeding by the recently introduced mosquito, Aedes japonicus japonicus, and public health implications. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2009;25:210–4. https://doi.org/10.2987/09-0012.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson JF, Armstrong PM, Misencik JK, Bransfield AB, Andreadis TG, Molaei G. Seasonal distribution, blood-feeding habits and viruses of mosquitoes in an open-faced quarry in Connecticut, 2010 and 2011. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2018;34:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Westby KM, Fritzen C, Paulsen D, Poindexter S, Moncayo AC. La Crosse encephalitis virus infection in field-collected Aedes albopictus, Aedes japonicus, and Aedes triseriatus in Tennessee. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2015;31:233–41. https://doi.org/10.2987/moco-31-03-233-241.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Damiens D, Ayrinhac A, Van Bortel W, Versteirt V, Dekoninck W, Hance T. Invasive process and repeated cross-sectional surveys of the mosquito Aedes japonicus japonicus establishment in Belgium. PLoS ONE. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089358.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Harris MC, Dotseth EJ, Jackson BT, Zink SD, Marek PE, Kramer LD, et al. La Crosse virus in Aedes japonicus japonicus mosquitoes in the Appalachian region, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:646–9. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2104.140734.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Williges E, Farajollahi A, Scott JJ, McCuiston LJ, Crans WJ, Gaugler R. Laboratory colonization of Aedes japonicus japonicus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008;24:591–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schönenberger AC, Wagner S, Tuten HC, Schaffner F, Torgerson P, Furrer S, et al. Host preferences in host-seeking and blood-fed mosquitoes in Switzerland. Med Vet Entomol. 2016;30:39–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gratz NG. Critical review of the vector status of Aedes albopictus. Med Vet Entomol. 2004;18:215–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-283X.2004.00513.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vanlandingham DL, Higgs S, Huang YJ. Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and mosquito-borne viruses in the United States. J Med Entomol. 2016;53:1024–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rezza G, Nicoletti L, Angelini R, Romi R, Finarelli AC, Panning M, et al. Infection with chikungunya virus in Italy: an outbreak in a temperate region. Lancet. 2007;370:1840–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61779-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. La Ruche G, Souarès Y, Armengaud A, Peloux-Petiot F, Delaunay P, Desprès P, et al. First two autochthonous dengue virus infections in metropolitan France, September 2010. Euro Surveill. 2010;15:19676. https://doi.org/10.2807/ese.15.39.19676-en.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Peng HJ, Lai HB, Zhang QL, Xu BY, Zhang H, Liu WH, et al. A local outbreak of dengue caused by an imported case in Dongguan China. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:83. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Grard G, Caron M, Mombo IM, Nkoghe D, Ondo SM, Jiolle D. Zika virus in Gabon (Central Africa)—2007: a new threat from Aedes albopictus? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e2681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002681.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Delisle E, Rousseau C, Broche B, Leparc-Goffart I, L’ambert G, Cochet A, et al. Chikungunya outbreak in Montpellier, France, September to October 2014. Euro Surveill. 2015;20:21108. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.es2015.20.17.21108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tsuda Y, Maekawa Y, Ogawa K, Itokawa K, Komagata O, Sasaki T, et al. Biting density and distribution of Aedes albopictus during the September 2014 outbreak of dengue fever in Yoyogi Park and the vicinity in Tokyo Metropolis, Japan. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2015;69:1–5. https://doi.org/10.7883/yoken.JJID.2014.576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Takashimi I, Rosen L. Horizontal and vertical transmission of Japanese encephalitis virus by Aedes japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 1989;26:454–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sardelis MR, Turell MJ, Andre RG. Laboratory transmission of La Crosse virus by Ochlerotatus j. japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2002;39(4):635–9. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-39.4.635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Turell MJ, O’Guinn ML, Dohm DJ, Jones JW. Vector competence of North American mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) for West Nile virus. J Med Entomol. 2001;38:130–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Sardelis MR, Turell MJ, Andre RG. Experimental transmission of St. Louis encephalitis virus by Ochlerotatus j. japonicus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2003;19:159–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sardelis MR, Dohm DJ, Pagac B, Andre RG, Turell MJ. Experimental transmission of eastern equine encephalitis virus by Ochlerotatus j. japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2002;39:480–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schaffner F, Vazeille M, Kaufmann C, Failloux A, Mathis A. Vector competence of Aedes japonicus for chikungunya and dengue viruses. J Eur Mosq Control Assoc. 2011;29:141–2.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Turell MJ, Byrd BD, Harrison BA. Potential for populations of Aedes j. japonicus to transmit Rift Valley fever virus in the USA. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2013;29:133–7. https://doi.org/10.2987/12-6316r.1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: West Nile virus activity—eastern United States, 2000. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:1044–1047.

  61. Lukacik G, Anand M, Shusas EJ, Howard JJ, Oliver J, Chen J, et al. West Nile virus surveillance in mosquitoes in New York State, 2000–2004. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006;22:264–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. DeCarlo CH, Campbell SC, Bigler LL, Mohammed HO. Aedes japonicus and West Nile virus in New York. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2020;36:261–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Yang F, Chan K, Marek PE, Armstrong PM, Liu P, Bova JE, et al. Cache Valley virus in Aedes japonicus japonicus mosquitoes, Appalachian Region, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24:553–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. LaDeau SL, Allan BF, Leisnham PT, Levy MZ. The ecological foundations of transmission potential and vector-borne disease in urban landscapes. Funct Ecol. 2015;29:889–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12487.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Rothman SE, Jones JA, LaDeau SL, Leisnham PT. Higher West Nile virus infection in Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Culex (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes from lower income neighborhoods in urban Baltimore, MD. J Med Entomol. 2021;58:1424–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaa262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. McDonald E, Martin SW, Landry K, Gould CV, Lehman J, Fischer M, et al. West Nile virus and other domestic nationally notifiable arboviral diseases—United States, 2018. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:673–8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6831a1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Darsie RF Jr, Ward RA. Identification and geographical distribution of the mosquitoes of North America, North of Mexico. 2nd ed. Gainesville, FL: Univ. Press of Florida Press; 2005. p. 1–383.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Darsie Jr. RF, Hutchinson ML. The mosquitoes of Pennsylvania. Technical Bulletin #2009-001. Penn Vector Control Assoc. 2009; 1–191.

  69. Andreadis TG, Thomas MC, Shepard JJ. Identification guide to the mosquitoes of Connecticut. Bull Conn Agric Exp Stn. 2005;966:1–173.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Lanciotti RS, Kerst AJ, Nasci RS, Godsey MS, Mitchell CJ, Savage HM, et al. Rapid detection of West Nile virus from human clinical specimens, field-collected mosquitoes, and avian samples by a TaqMan reverse transcriptase-PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:4066–71. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.38.11.4066-4071.2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Hull R, Nattanmai S, Kramer LD, Bernard KA, Tavakoli NP. A duplex real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of St. Louis encephalitis and eastern equine encephalitis viruses. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;62(3):272–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Lambert AJ, Nasci RS, Cropp BC, Martin DA, Rose BC, Russell BJ, et al. Nucleic acid amplification assays for detection of La Crosse virus RNA. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(4):1885–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Molaei G, Andreadis TG, Armstrong PM, Anderson JF, Vossbrinck CR. Host feeding patterns of Culex mosquitoes and West Nile virus transmission, northeastern United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:468–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Molaei G, Andreadis TG. Identification of avian- and mammalian-derived bloodmeals in Aedes vexans and Culiseta melanura (Diptera: Culicidae) and its implication for West Nile virus transmission in Connecticut, USA. J Med Entomol. 2006;43:1088–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ngo KA, Kramer LD. Identification of mosquito bloodmeals using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with order-specific primers. J Med Entomol. 2003;40:215–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Molaei G, Thomas MC, Muller T, Medlock J, Shepard JJ, Armstrong PM, et al. Dynamics of vector–host interactions in avian communities in four eastern equine encephalitis virus foci in the Northeastern US. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(1): e0004347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004347.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Gu W, Lampman R, Novak R. Assessment of arbovirus vector infection rates using variable size pooling. Med Vet Entomol. 2004;18:200–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. DeFelice N, Little E, Campbell SR, Shaman J. Ensemble forecast of human West Nile virus cases and mosquito infection rates. Nat Commun. 2017; 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14592.

  79. R Core Team. 2019. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

  80. Pedersen K, Wang E, Weaver SC, Wolf PC, Randall AR, Van Why KR, et al. Serologic evidence of various arboviruses detected in White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the United States. Am J Trp Med Hyg. 2017;97:319–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Farajollahi A, Gates R, Crans W, Komar N. Serologic evidence of West Nile virus and St. Louis encephalitis virus infections in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from New Jersey, 2001. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2004;4:379–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rocheleau JP, Michel P, Lindsay LR, Drebot M, Dibernardo A, Ogden NH, et al. Risk factors associated with seropositivity to California serogroup viruses in humans and pet dogs, Quebec, Canada. Epidemiol Infect. 2018;146:1167–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Gill CM, Beckham JD, Piquet AL, Tyler KL, Pastula DM. Five emerging neuroinvasive arboviral diseases: Cache Valley, eastern equine encephalitis, Jamestown Canyon, Powassan, and Usutu. Semin Neurol. 2019;39:419–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Almeida APG, Baptista SSSG, Sousa CAGC, Novo MTLM, Ramos HC, Panella NA, et al. Bioecology and vectorial capacity of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Macao, China, in relation to dengue virus transmission. J Med Entomol. 2005;42:419–428.

  85. Becker B, Leisnham PT, LaDeau SL. A tale of two city blocks: Differences in immature and adult mosquito abundances between socioeconomically different urban blocks in Baltimore (Maryland, USA). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:3256–70. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110303256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Eastwood G, Donnellycolt AK, Shepard JJ, Misencik MJ, Bedoukian R, Cole L, et al. Evaluation of novel trapping lures for monitoring exotic and native container-inhabiting Aedes spp. (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes. J Med Entomol. 2019;57:534–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjz200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Holick J, Kyle A, Ferraro W, Delaney RR, Iwaseczk M. Discovery of Aedes albopictus infected with West Nile virus in southeastern Pennsylvania. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2002;18:131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. LaDeau SL, Leisnham PT, Biehler D, Bodner D. Higher mosquito production in low-income neighborhoods of Baltimore and Washington, DC: understanding ecological drivers and mosquito-borne disease risk in temperate cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10:1505–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10041505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection West Nile virus program administration for support and data management, to regional and county staff for mosquito collections, and to laboratory staff for their mosquito and virus identification efforts. We would like to thank the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station research technicians, Noelle Khalil and Alexander Diaz, as well as seasonal research assistants Mallery Breban and Douglas Vuong for technical assistance.

Funding

Funding for this research project was in part provided by Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Disease Cooperative Agreement Number U50/CCU6806-01-1 from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of the funding agency.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Michael L. Hutchinson

    Present address: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA, 17110, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 123 Huntington Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Eliza A. H. Little

  2. Center for Vector Biology and Zoonotic Diseases and Northeast Regional Center for Excellence in Vector-Borne Diseases, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 123 Huntington Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Eliza A. H. Little, John J. Shepard & Goudarz Molaei

  3. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA, 17101, USA

    Michael L. Hutchinson & Keith J. Price

  4. Department of Environmental Sciences, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 123 Huntington Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Alyssa Marini, John J. Shepard & Goudarz Molaei

  5. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, 60 College Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Goudarz Molaei

Authors
  1. Eliza A. H. Little
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. Hutchinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keith J. Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alyssa Marini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John J. Shepard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Goudarz Molaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GM and MLH conceived the study and were in charge of overall direction and planning. GM, MLH, JJS, and AM carried out the experiment. EAHL derived the models and analyzed the data with help from GM, MLH, and KJP. GM, MLH, and EAHL contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. EAHL took the lead in writing the manuscript in consultation with GM, MLH, and KJP. GM, MLH, KJP, and JJS provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Goudarz Molaei.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

The annual infection rate for all species that had at least one positive pool using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and 95% confidence intervals in parenthesis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Little, E.A.H., Hutchinson, M.L., Price, K.J. et al. Spatiotemporal distribution, abundance, and host interactions of two invasive vectors of arboviruses, Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus, in Pennsylvania, USA. Parasites Vectors 15, 36 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05151-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05151-8

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us