Skip to main content

Using community science data to assess the association between urbanization and the presence of invasive Aedes species in Hungary



Urbanization can be a significant contributor to the spread of invasive mosquito vector species, and the diseases they carry, as urbanized habitats provide access to a great density of food resources (humans and domestic animals) and offer abundant breeding sites for these vectors. Although anthropogenic landscapes are often associated with the presence of invasive mosquito species, we still have little understanding about the relationships between some of these and the built environment.


This study explores the association between urbanization level and the occurrence of invasive Aedes species, specifically Aedes albopictus, Aedes japonicus, and Aedes koreicus, in Hungary, using data from a community (or citizen) science program undertaken between 2019 and 2022.


The association between each of these species and urbanized landscapes within an extensive geographic area was found to differ. Using the same standardized approach, Ae. albopictus showed a statistically significant and positive relationship with urbanization, whereas Ae. japonicus and Ae. koreicus did not.


The findings highlight the importance of community science to mosquito research, as the data gathered using this approach can be used to make qualitative comparisons between species to explore their ecological requirements.

Graphical Abstract


Biological invasions are a global challenge as they can affect natural ecosystems in many ways and, in the case of newly introduced vector species, increase the potential for disease transmission. The current worldwide spread of invasive mosquito species, e.g. Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, and Anopheles stephensi, is a major problem [1, 2], as some of them can transmit emerging and endemic pathogens of zoonotic and veterinary importance, including viruses, protozoans, and filarial nematodes [3].

Urbanization is a key environmental factor that can contribute to the emergence of certain invasive species and accelerate their spread across large geographical areas [4]. Urbanized habitats provide a wide variety of human-made breeding sites (e.g., stagnant water in cemeteries, artificial containers, catch basins, etc.). Invasive species can easily adapt to these habitats, where they may also find an unlimited source of food, including a high density of potential human and domestic animal hosts [5]. Furthermore, invasive species may also experience reduced competition in cities, which can affect their development and spread [6, 7]. The occurrence of certain invasive mosquito species, such as Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, is often associated with heavily urbanized areas [4, 8,9,10], while comparable evidence for the habitat preference of other invasive species, such as Aedes japonicus and Aedes koreicus, is lacking or conflicting. A recent meta-analysis showed that the presence and/or abundance of Ae. japonicus was not affected by landscape anthropization (i.e., urbanization, agricultural activities, and deforestation), whereas a negative correlation was found for Ae. koreicus [10]. However, the meta-analysis included considerably fewer studies for these two species, thus inferences regarding the effect of urbanization on their distribution can be considered to have a weak basis. Furthermore, most of the available studies are based on the comparison of field-collected data between rural and urban sites or along an urban gradient [11, 12]. The number of sampling sites and the geographical scale of these studies are, however, usually limited due to the difficulties associated with performing wide-scale and standardized surveillance. Ideally, to gain a better understanding of the preference of different invasive species for urban habitats through comparison, one needs to monitor the presence of all of the species in parallel using the same standardized methodology and at the same geographic resolution.

Community (or citizen) science is a useful approach for the collection of occurrence data of invasive mosquito species on a wide spatial and temporal scale [13,14,15]. This approach is often more effective in detecting the occurrence of invasive mosquitoes than traditional surveillance methods [16]. Additionally, community science data appear to be repeatable, and prevalence and abundance estimates from community science programs seem to be as reliable as those collected during more conventional field studies [17].

The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between urbanization level and the presence of invasive mosquito species, specifically Ae. albopictus, Ae. japonicus, and Ae. koreicus, in Hungary, using occurrence data from community science.


Community science

Reports from the public on their encounters with suspected Ae. albopictus, Ae. koreicus and Ae. japonicus in an area of Hungary, Central Europe, covering ca. 93,030 km2, were submitted via email or mobile application ( between 2019 and 2022 ( [17]. Physical specimens sent by post were also considered for inclusion in the study. The observations were assessed by expert dipterologists, who identified the mosquitoes to species level using standard identification keys [17,18,19].

Definition of variables

The validated reports were entered into a database, where each row reflected whether a citizen’s observation was a true report for any of the target invasive species (where 1 indicated that the taxonomic validation confirmed the detection of a target species and 0 indicated that it did not; these data were tabulated separately for each of the three species). Observations of mosquitoes of uncertain identity were removed from the data. Furthermore, for each target species, an entry was treated as missing if there was a confirmed observation of another target species in the same row.

Based on the geographic coordinates of the public observations, an urbanization index was calculated for the surrounding 1 × 1 km2 by using UrbanizationScore software [20]. This program scores the abundance of vegetation, buildings, and paved roads based on aerial images from Google Maps, and combines these information into a principal component that scores the locations along an urbanization gradient.

Each report included information on the date (year and day within a specific year, reflecting seasonal effects), and the mode (post, e-mail or mobile application) of each sample submission. These data were entered into the statistical model as control variables (see below).

Statistical analyses

To explore the determinants of the probability of detection of the target species, a generalized linear model was fit with a binomial distribution and logit link function for each species separately. The response variable was the binary state variable, reflecting the detection of the given species in a given location, and the main predictor was the urbanization score. As control variables, the year and mode of sample submission were entered as categorical predictors, while the detection date was entered as a circular variable (using the sine and cosine of the radians of the actual date).


The number of confirmed observations for each of the invasive species was systematically lower than the number of reports for the native species (see species-specific sample sizes in Fig. 1). These sample sizes indicated that a single observation of an invasive species an be matched with one to five observations of noninvasive species as controls, thus the sample was considered to be sufficiently balanced. Urbanization scores were normally distributed (mean ± SE, − 0.004 ± 0.040; range, − 5.013–6.202), indicating that the citizen observations were for a wide range of habitat types, and that the data were not biased with respect to reports from cities (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The effect of urbanization on the probability of detection for a Aedes albopictus, b Aedes japonicus, and c Aedes koreicus. Points indicate separate observations and are jittered along the y-axis for better visualization (sample sizes—Ae. albopictus, n0 = 983, n1 = 970; Ae. japonicus, n0 = 983, n1 = 428; Ae. japonicus, n0 = 983, n1 = 184). Lines are regression lines calculated from the appropriate generalized linear model. PCA Principal component analysis

Table 1 The relationship between the probability of detection of Aedes albopictus and the level of urbanization, while controlling for year and seasonal effects and the mode of sample submission in a generalized linear model (with binomial distribution)

The generalized linear models revealed that, when controlling for the potentially confounding variables, the urbanization index was positively associated with the occurrence of Ae. albopictus (Fig. 1a; Additional file 1: Table S1). However, the urbanization score was not a significant predictor of the presence of Ae. japonicus or Ae. koreicus (Fig. 1b, c; Additional file 1: Table S1). The estimates for the control variables indicated that year and seasonal effects were significant predictors for the detection of the target species and, in the case of Ae. japonicus, that the mode of sample submission was also a significant predictor (Additional file 1: Table S1).


The findings on Ae. albopictus support the predictions and results of previous studies regarding the preference of this species for urban habitats [5, 10, 21]. The difference between the current study and previous ones, however, is that it relied, to our knowledge for the first time, on community science to provide this evidence. The results of the present study also confirm previous findings on Ae. japonicus that showed no association of this species with urbanization, which suggests that this species exploits urban and rural areas equally [11, 22]. Neither did the occurrence of Ae. koreicus show a clear association with the level of urbanization, which contrasts with theoretical expectations [23,24,25] and the findings of a recent meta-analysis that showed a negative association between this species and urban environments [10].

As the current study applied the same standard methodology for the three focal species, the obtained effect sizes are comparable. Thus, the results obtained allowed for quantitative comparisons between the three invasive species. Although invasive species are generally assumed to be associated with urbanized habitats [26], the results of this work indicate that the association between species occurrence and level of urbanization can vary between closely related species, even within the same geographical area. Considering that the focal species were first detected in Hungary about a decade ago and have had approximately the same amount of time to disperse [24, 27], the results also indicate that different mosquito species may respond differently to the same ecological constraints during this process.

It has been suggested that Ae. albopictus has a preference for humans when it is present in non-native areas—and may also occasionally feed on other available mammals or even birds, including domestic animals—which may partially explain its strong association with urbanized habitats [28]. However, a preference for urban habitats may also evolve as a result of enriched conditions for breeding in these artificial environments, and human biting behavior may actually be a secondary consequence of this environment-mediated adaptation [29]. Urban and peri-urban sites can offer favorable microclimatic factors for breeding [30], an increased number of breeding sites [31], improved water quality [32], and even a reduced chance of the co-occurrence of competitive species and predators [33,34,35]. Given the correlative nature of the available evidence, it remains unknown whether the association of Ae. albopictus with urbanized landscapes is mediated by breeding or foraging ecology or, to some extent, both. Note that Ae. japonicus and Ae. koreicus exhibit largely mammalophilic feeding behavior, with occasional biting on humans [28, 36], and that they are typically found in natural or rural environments [11, 37, 38].

It is important to note that, although community science appears to be a useful tool for the surveillance of invasive mosquitoes, it has its own limitations. Findings based on this approach can be confounded by, for example, non-random sampling, underrepresented geographical areas, unbalanced sampling effort, and requirements for data validation [39, 40]. However, these shortcomings were unlikely to have caused a considerable degree of bias in the current study, as the distribution of the data suggested that localities were randomly sampled along an urbanization gradient between two extremes, irrespective of the underlying sampling effort (Fig. 1). Depending on the research question, future studies should also consider including traditional collection methods, and ideally apply direct field sampling in parallel with indirect surveillance based on community science.


These results provide novel insights into the distribution and habitat preferences of invasive mosquito species, and highlight the importance of community science in the field of mosquito research and control. The results indicate that community science may not only be useful for tracking the spread and occurrence of invasive species, but may also allow qualitative comparison between species to further explore their ecological requirements. The use of a unified and standard methodology allowed the identification of species-specific roles that affected the spread of three invasive mosquito species in the same country within the same time frame.

Availability of data and materials

All the data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and Additional file 2: Dataset S1).


  1. Medlock JM, Hansford KM, Versteirt V, Cull B, Kampen H, Fontenille D, et al. An entomological review of invasive mosquitoes in Europe. Bull Entomol Res. 2015;105:637–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilke ABB, Benelli G, Beier JC. Beyond frontiers: on invasive alien mosquito species in America and Europe. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schaffner F, Medlock JM, Van Bortel W. Public health significance of invasive mosquitoes in Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19:685–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Li Y, Kamara F, Zhou G, Puthiyakunnon S, Li C, Liu Y, et al. Urbanization increases Aedes albopictus larval habitats and accelerates mosquito development and survivorship. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolimenakis A, Heinz S, Wilson ML, Winkler V, Yakob L, Michaelakis A, et al. The role of urbanisation in the spread of Aedes mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit—a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15:1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bevins SN. Invasive mosquitoes, larval competition, and indirect effects on the vector competence of native mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae). Biol Invasions. 2008;10:1109–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bevins SN. Timing of resource input and larval competition between invasive and native container-inhabiting mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vector Ecol. 2007;32:252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Samson DM, Archer RS, Alimi TO, Arheart KL, Impoinvil DE, Oscar R, et al. New baseline environmental assessment of mosquito ecology in northern Haiti during increased urbanization. J Vector Ecol. 2015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Soriano JMB. Urbanization determines the abundance of disease vector mosquitoes in Moorea, French Polynesia. Berkeley Sci J. 2020;24:44–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Perrin A, Glaizot O, Christe P. Worldwide impacts of landscape anthropization on mosquito abundance and diversity: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol. 2022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bartlett-Healy K, Unlu I, Obenauer P, Hughes T, Healy S, Crepeau T, et al. Larval mosquito habitat utilization and community dynamics of Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2012;49:813–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Früh L, Kampen H, Koban MB, Pernat N, Schaub GA, Werner D. Oviposition of Aedes japonicus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) and associated native species in relation to season, temperature and land use in western Germany. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Palmer JRB, Oltra A, Collantes F, Delgado JA, Lucientes J, Delacour S, et al. Citizen science provides a reliable and scalable tool to track disease-carrying mosquitoes. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Walther D, Kampen H. The citizen science project “Mueckenatlas” helps monitor the distribution and spread of invasive mosquito species in Germany. J Med Entomol. 2017;54:1790–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Carney RM, Mapes C, Low RD, Long A, Bowser A, Durieux D, et al. Integrating global citizen science platforms to enable next-generation surveillance of invasive and vector mosquitoes. Insects. 2022;13:675.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Pernat N, Kampen H, Jeschke JM, Werner D. Citizen science versus professional data collection: comparison of approaches to mosquito monitoring in Germany. J Appl Ecol. 2021;58:214–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garamszegi L, Kurucz K, Soltész Z. Validating citizen science mediated surveillance of invasive mosquitoes in Hungary. J Appl Ecol. 2023.

  18. Kenyeres Z, Tóth S. Csípőszúnyog határozó. II. (Imágók). 2nd ed. Pannónia Füzetek; 2008.

  19. Gunay F, Picard M, Robert V. MosKeyTool, an interactive identification key for mosquitoes of Euro-Mediterranean. 2023. p. Version 2.1 ed 2018. Available from:

  20. Czúni L, Lipovits Á, Seress G. Estimation of urbanization using visual features of satellite images. Int Conf Geogr Inf Sci. 2012;233–8.

  21. Zettle M, Anderson E, LaDeau SL. Changes in container-breeding mosquito diversity and abundance along an urbanization gradient are associated with dominance of arboviral vectors. J Med Entomol. 2022;59:843–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chaves LF, Friberg MD, Moji K. Synchrony of globally invasive Aedes spp. immature mosquitoes along an urban altitudinal gradient in their native range. Sci Total Environ. 2020;735:139365.

  23. Kurucz K, Manica M, Delucchi L, Kemenesi G, Marini G. Dynamics and distribution of the invasive mosquito Aedes koreicus in a temperate European city. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kurucz K, Kiss V, Zana B, Schmieder V, Kepner A, Jakab F, et al. Emergence of Aedes koreicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in an urban area, Hungary, 2016. Parasitol Res. 2016;115:4687–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Montarsi F, Drago A, Russo F. Current knowledge on the distribution and biology of the recently introduced invasive mosquito Aedes koreicus (Diptera: Culicidae). Atti Accad Naz Ital Entomol. 2014;57:169–74.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Borden JB, Flory SL. Urban evolution of invasive species. Front Ecol Environ. 2021;19:184–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Seidel B, Nowotny N, Bakonyi T, Allerberger F, Schaffner F. Spread of Aedes japonicus japonicus (Theobald, 1901) in Austria, 2011–2015, and first records of the subspecies for Hungary, 2012, and the principality of Liechtenstein, 2015. Parasit Vectors; 2016;9:1–7.

  28. Little EAH, Hutchinson ML, Price KJ, Marini A, Shepard JJ. Spatiotemporal distribution, abundance, and host interactions of two invasive vectors of arboviruses, Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus, in Pennsylvania, USA. Parasit Vectors. 2022;15:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rose NH, Sylla M, Badolo A, Lutomiah J, Ayala D, Aribodor OB, et al. Climate and urbanization drive mosquito preference for humans. Curr Biol. 2020;30:3570-3579.e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ravasi D, Mangili F, Huber D, Cannata M, Strigaro D, Flacio E. The effects of microclimatic winter conditions in urban areas on the risk of establishment for Aedes albopictus. Sci Rep. 2022;12:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Vezzani D. Artificial container-breeding mosquitoes and cemeteries a perfect match. Trop Med Int Heal. 2007;12:299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dalpadado R, Amarasinghe D, Gunathilaka N. Water quality characteristics of breeding habitats in relation to the density of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in domestic settings in Gampaha District of Sri Lanka. Acta Trop. 2022;229:106339.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Giatropoulos A, Papachristos D, Michaelakis A, Kapranas A, Emmanouel N. Laboratory study on larval competition between two related mosquito species: Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus and Aedes (Stegomyia) cretinus. Acta Trop. 2022;230:106389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Muniaraj M, Rajamannar V, Venkatesh A, Leo SVJ, Venkatasubramani K, Paramasivan R, et al. Predation of Aedes aegypti eggs by foraging ants Solenopsis invicta, Myrmicaria brunnea, Diacamma rugosum, and Monomorium minimum. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2022;38:118–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pauly I, Jakoby O, Becker N. Efficacy of native cyclopoid copepods in biological vector control with regard to their predatory behavior against the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus. Parasit Vectors. 2022;15:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cebrián-Camisón S, de la Puente JM, Figuerola J. A literature review of host feeding patterns of invasive Aedes mosquitoes in Europe. Insects. 2020;11:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ganassi S, De Cristofaro A, Di Criscio D, Petrarca S, Leopardi C, Guarnieri A, et al. The new invasive mosquito species Aedes koreicus as vector-borne diseases in the European area, a focus on Italian region: what we know from the scientific literature. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:931994.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Arnoldi I, Negri A, Soresinetti L, Brambilla M, Carraretto D, Montarsi F, et al. Assessing the distribution of invasive Asian mosquitoes in northern Italy and modelling the potential spread of Aedes koreicus in Europe. Acta Trop. 2022;232:106536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Walker DW, Smigaj M, Tani M. The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water. 2021;8:1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Eisen L, Eisen RJ. Benefits and drawbacks of citizen science to complement traditional data gathering approaches for medically important hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J Med Entomol. 2020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We are grateful to the community scientists who collected and provided the observational data on invasive mosquitoes. We are also grateful to Bea Újvárosi, who helped to organize the community science data and calculated the urbanization scores. Additionally, we are grateful to the reviewers and the associate editor for their insights and constructive comments.


Open access funding provided by ELKH Centre for Ecological Research. The study was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (K-135841, FK-138563, PD-135143, RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006) and the Sustainable Development and Technologies National Programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (FFT NP FTA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



LZG and TS conceptualized and designed the study. ZS initiated the community science data collection, while ZS, KK, and LZG coordinated the subsequent data collection. ZS and KK performed the taxonomical identification, and LZG performed the statistical analyses. LZG and TS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to László Zsolt Garamszegi.

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. Results of the generalized linear model.

Additional file 2:

Dataset S1. Urbanization scores and the probability of detection (0 or 1) for Aedes albopictus, Aedes japonicus and Aedes koreicus in Hungary, as determined using the data of a community science survey undertaken between 2019 and 2022.

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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( 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

Garamszegi, L.Z., Soltész, Z., Kurucz, K. et al. Using community science data to assess the association between urbanization and the presence of invasive Aedes species in Hungary. Parasites Vectors 16, 158 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Citizen science
  • Disease vector
  • Habitat preference
  • Urbanization level