Abstract
We quantified the difference between the meteorological temperature recorded by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) weather stations and the actual microclimatic temperatures at two or three different heights at six potential insect habitats. We then compared the impact of the hourly temperature on the extrinsic incubation period (EIP) of six pathogens. Finally, we developed a regression model, enabling us to predict the microclimatic temperatures of different habitats based on five standard meteorological parameters readily available from any meteorological institution. Microclimatic habitats were on average 3.5–5 °C warmer than the DMI recorded temperatures during midday and 1–3 °C cooler at midnight. The estimated EIP for five of the six microclimatic habitats was shorter than the estimates based on DMI temperatures for all pathogens studied. The microclimatic temperatures also predicted a longer season for virus development compared to DMI temperatures. Based on DMI data of hourly temperature, solar radiation, wind speed, rain and humidity, we were able to predict the microclimatic temperature of different habitats with an R2 of 0.87–0.96. Using only meteorological temperatures for vector-borne disease transmission models may substantially underestimate both the daily potential for virus development and the duration of the potential transmission season.
Highlights
Temperature is a key driver of vector-borne disease transmission, as replication of arboviruses and parasites within the cold-blooded vectors are dependent on the environmental temperature[1, 2]
We modelled microclimatic temperatures of six different habitats in Denmark based on available hourly meteorological data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), measured at weather stations adhering to World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standards
We do not know which particular microclimatic temperature is most relevant to select as resting site for the different vector species, so instead of single extrinsic incubation period (EIP) estimates based on a specific microclimate, we suggest the EIP and blood meal digestion period are better estimated as a range based on different microclimates within a given area of interest
Summary
Temperature is a key driver of vector-borne disease transmission, as replication of arboviruses and parasites within the cold-blooded vectors are dependent on the environmental temperature[1, 2]. Vector-borne disease transmission models for estimating the EIP and blood meal digestion period often use temperatures recorded by a meteorological institute[4,5,6,7] rather than the actual microclimatic temperatures to which the vectors are exposed. Rudolf Geiger (1950) described the mechanisms of heat exchange at ground surface, the warming and cooling process and relationship between ground surface temperature, and the relationship between ground surface temperature and factors affecting this temperature such as humidity, wind, and solar radiation[9] Earlier this century, a number of articles published on microclimatic temperature[10,11,12,13,14,15] but only a few of them were on vector-borne diseases[16, 17]. The country experiences many hours above the threshold temperatures of viral replication in spring (May-June) and autumn (September-October), which is not apparent from the daily or monthly mean temperatures[22]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
