# The diversity of microparasites of rodents: a comparative analysis that helps in identifying rodent-borne rich habitats in Southeast Asia

Frédéric Bordes, Vincent Herbreteau, Stéphane Dupuy, Yannick Chaval, Annelise Tran, Serge Morand

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Frédéric Bordes, Vincent Herbreteau, Stéphane Dupuy, Yannick Chaval, Annelise Tran, et al. The diversity of microparasites of rodents: a comparative analysis that helps in identifying rodent-borne rich habitats in Southeast Asia. Infection Ecology & Epidemiology, 2013, 3 (1), pp.20178. 10.3402/iee.v3i0.20178. hal-01239634

HAL Id: hal-01239634

https://hal.univ-reunion.fr/hal-01239634

Submitted on 21 Jun 2018

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# The diversity of microparasites of rodents: a comparative analysis that helps in identifying rodent-borne rich habitats in Southeast Asia

Frédéric Bordes, Vincent Herbreteau, Stéphane Dupuy, Yannick Chaval, Annelise Tran & Serge Morand

To cite this article: Frédéric Bordes, Vincent Herbreteau, Stéphane Dupuy, Yannick Chaval, Annelise Tran & Serge Morand (2013) The diversity of microparasites of rodents: a comparative analysis that helps in identifying rodent-borne rich habitats in Southeast Asia, Infection Ecology & Epidemiology, 3:1, 20178, DOI: 10.3402/iee.v3i0.20178

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3402/iee.v3i0.20178

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

© 2013 Frédéric Bordes et al.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Published online: 08 Apr 2013.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Article views: 173

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

View related articles
# The diversity of microparasites of rodents: a comparative analysis that helps in identifying rodent-borne rich habitats in Southeast Asia

Frédéric Bordes, DVM, PhD<fnref n="1" />, Vincent Herbreteau, PhD<fnref n="2" />, Stéphane Dupuy, MSc³, Yannick Chaval, BSc⁴, Annelise Tran, PhD³,⁵ and Serge Morand, PhD<fnref n="1" />,³,⁶*

**Background:** Predicting habitats prone to favor disease transmission is challenging due to confounding information on habitats, reservoirs, and diseases. Comparative analysis, which aims at investigating ecological and evolutionary patterns among species, is a tool that may help. The emergence of zoonotic pathogens is a major health concern and is closely linked to habitat modifications by human activities. Risk assessment requires a better knowledge of the interactions between hosts, parasites, and the landscape.

**Methods:** We used information from a field spatial study that investigated the distribution of murid rodents, in various habitats of three countries in Southeast Asia, in combination with their status of infection by 10 taxa of microparasites obtained from the literature. Microparasite species richness was calculated by rodent species on 20,272 rodents of 13 species. Regression tree models and generalized linear models were used to explain microparasite diversity by the average distance between the trapping site and five categories of land cover: forest, steep agriculture land, flat agriculture land, water, and built-up surfaces. Another variable taken into account was the slope.

**Results:** We found that microparasite diversity was positively associated with flat agriculture land, in this context mainly rice fields, and negatively associated with slope. Microparasite diversity decreased sharply a 100 m or less from flat agriculture land.

**Conclusion:** We conclude that there is high microparasite circulation in rodents of flooded farmlands, meaning possibly a higher risk of disease for human inhabitants.

**Keywords:** rodent-borne diseases; landscape; transmission ecology; comparative analysis

Received: 27 November 2012; Revised: 20 February 2013; Accepted: 7 March 2013; Published: 8 April 2013

All attempts to understand disease ecology and parasite transmission have to consider often, if not always, two important factors. First, hosts (at species or individual levels) are not equal when it comes to parasite transmission, i.e. a great heterogeneity exists in parasite transmission with some individuals (or species) being responsible for a disproportionate number of transmission events (1, 2). This heterogeneity can be related to differences in susceptibility (3) and/or in exposure to infected hosts or environment (2). Second, across space, another heterogeneity is observed with

some habitats or landscapes prone to differentially affect parasitic or vectors persistence or transmission between hosts (4–6). This heterogeneity may reflect biodiversity change and sometimes biodiversity loss, which may affect reservoir species composition (7–10).

The influence of landscape heterogeneity on disease ecology gains more and more importance when there are accelerated environmental changes, such as deforestation for agricultural purposes. All these environmental changes are prone to affect the location and densities of parasites, hosts, or vectors (11–13). Consequently, these

<footnote n="1">¹Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution, CNRS-IRD-UM2, Université de Montpellier 2, Montpellier, France;</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²ESPACE-DEV-IRD, Université de Montpellier 2, Montpellier, France; ³CIRAD, UMR TETIS, Montpellier,</footnote>

<footnote>France; ⁴Centre de Biologie et de Gestion des Population, INRA, Montferrier sur Lez, France; ⁵CIRAD, UR</footnote>

<footnote>AGIRs, Montpellier, France; ⁶Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand</footnote>
environmental changes can affect positively or negatively parasite transmission as emphasized by Ostfeld et al. (7). Assuming that hosts and environments may contribute disproportionately to parasite transmission, the challenge is to identify their links to predict disease persistence or emergence (2).

From this perspective, rodent-borne diseases caused by major pathogens like *Leptospira* sp., hantaviruses, arenaviruses, *Borrelia* sp. (agents of Lyme disease), *Yersinia pestis* (agent of Plague), or *Bartonella* sp. have, for a long time, been probed so as to identify their rodent reservoirs, and more precisely as emphasized by Haydon et al. (14) their reservoir complexes, i.e. heterogeneity in host species, composition, and importance (14, 15) and/or transmission places, i.e. heterogeneity in space (16, 17).

Recently, two concepts have emerged: ‘synanthropic species’ (namely species ecologically associated with humans) and ‘generalist’ species (i.e. prone to live in peridomestic habitats or to invade disturbed habitats) (16, 18, 19) – information on preferred habitats of South-east Asian rodents is available on www.ceropath.org. For example, outbreaks of Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in Panama have been positively correlated to species-poor rodent communities in disturbed habitats and to the dominance of two reservoir hosts for Hantavirus (*Oligor-yzomys fulvescens* and *Zygodontomys brevicauda*) in such areas (18, 20). Interestingly, such a trend was recently confirmed by a comparative study performed by McFarlane et al. (19) in the Asian-Australian region, in which they found that wild mammal hosts (mainly rodents and bats) of zoonotic emerging infectious diseases are 15 times more likely to inhabit human-modified environments. In other words, deforestation and other disturbances are supposed to increase the distribution and abundance of generalist rodent species, which are prone to being reservoirs of human pathogens.

However, we have also to consider that most places in tropical areas are already largely human-modified, even supposed preserved habitats such as forests, especially in Southeast Asia (SEA) (21). The real challenge is rather to identify specific environmental determinants likely to explain higher rodent parasite infections in disturbed areas: explaining the spatial heterogeneity of infection patterns is the main objective of spatial epidemiology (4). Moreover and importantly, this goal could be more significant than tracking host species reservoirs *per se* for at least three reasons. First, identification of ‘reservoirs’ is not always easy as both the detection of antibodies and direct detection of pathogens in wild hosts are difficult to perform and to interpret (14). Second, if some associations between a particular disease in humans and the presence of a given host reservoir species exist, infection in humans is not always congruent with distribution of host reservoir species. For example,

the bank vole is the most widespread and abundant rodent species in Europe and the main reservoir of Puumala virus, the agent of the hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) in humans, but the cases of HFRS are restricted to a limited portion of its global distribution (17). The spatial distribution of this Hantavirus further depends on parameters such as forest patch size and connectivity of the most suitable rodent habitats (22), or on the optimal conditions for the survival of the virus outside the host. Third, identifying a reservoir for only one parasite may be, at least in some areas, rather restrictive due to the important circulation of multiple pathogens in natural systems, especially in rodents (23, 24). In fact, multiple infection, or concomitant infection, is the rule and only starts to be considered as a key factor in natural wild systems, due to parasite species interactions or impacts related to multiple infections on hosts (24–26). As a result, parasitic risk is global, with many parasite species liable to infect humans.

Comparative analyses seek at identifying host determinants, ecological or life traits, of parasite diversity. Few studies have investigated environmental niches or habitat characteristics as potential determinants of the parasite species richness, often because of lack of accurate information on hosts’ habitats (27). Moreover, a difficulty is linked to the fact that the parasite diversity observed in a given individual host is always lower than the parasite diversity at the host population level, which is also lower than the parasite diversity at the host species level. This means that trying to relate the parasite diversity observed at the host individual level with the surrounding features of landscape may hardly help at identifying pathogenic landscape for multiple diseases.

Focusing on rodent-borne diseases in SEA, we aimed to identify habitat of high richness in rodent-borne diseases using a comparative analysis approach. For this, we crossed a dataset on microparasite diversity (agents of rodent-borne diseases) in murid rodents in SEA, a major clade of reservoirs of zoonotic diseases (15), with an original geo-referenced dataset in order to detect association between landscape features, where rodents were trapped, and the total extant of microparasite species richness harbored by rodent species. More precisely, we used the land covers of seven sites in Thailand, Cambodia, and Lao PDR (28) and literature data on the diversity of microbial agents circulating in rodents of these countries (29) to identify pathogenic habitats in this tropical area.

## Material and methods

### Rodents

Rodents were trapped in the Cambodian provinces of Preah Sihanouk and Mondulkiri, the Thai provinces
of Loei, Buriram and Nan, and the Lao provinces of
Champasak and Luang Prabang (see www.ceropath.org).

These locations represent a variety of habitats, in
relation to human pressures and land usage. Habitats
were ranked as: 1) forests and mature plantations, 2) non-
flooded lands or fields (shrubby wasteland, young
plantations, orchards), 3) rain-fed lowland paddy rice
fields (cultivated floodplain), 4) households (in villages or
city). Each natural and agricultural habitat was sampled
with an equal pressure using a stratified trapping proto-
col. For each trapping session, 30 trap lines of 10 locally
made cage-traps (separated at 5 m intervals) were
deployed during four nights. The trapping pressure could
be estimated at 1,200 trap night for each locality at each
season. Villages and isolated houses, which correspond to
the fourth habitat category, were also sampled using cage-
traps distributed to residents. Additional trappings were
obtained using local hunters, from where less accurate
precision in the trapping sites were often recorded.

Geographical coordinates of trap line devices and households were systematically recorded with a GPS and the surrounding landscape was described by field observation with a three-level classification: 'low resolution' for the main landscape categories (forest, non-flooded agriculture fields, irrigated/rain-fed agriculture field, settlement), 'medium resolution' for a more detailed category nested in the 'low resolution' (for example: isolated farm in 'settlement', rice field in 'rain-fed agriculture field', corn field in 'non-flooded agriculture field', dry evergreen in 'forest') and 'high resolution' nested 'medium resolution' to give more precision (harvested rice field, inside rice store, etc.).

The accuracy of geographical coordinates ranges from:
1 (less than 10 m, i.e. the precision of GPS) for
geographical coordinates taken at the individual trap; 2
(less than 100 m, i.e. a trap line of ten traps is less than
100 m long) for geographical coordinates taken in the
middle of traps' line; and 3 (less than 1,000 m, i.e. a
rodent trapped in a given field or in a given village) for
geographical coordinates for a rodent trapped by hunter
in an area around these coordinates.

Two trapping sessions were realized per locality during different seasons from 2008 to 2009. Pictures, habitat description and coordinates of trap lines are available in the 'research/study' areas and 'research/protocols' sections of the CERoPath project web site (www.ceropath.org).

This standardized and structured trapping protocol
helps at minimizing biases when comparing within and
between sites, which has permitted to compare the
prevalence of infection of rodents by bacteria of the
genus *Leptospira* in the two sites of Cambodia (30). It was
also designed to have an estimation of the rodent density
using the number of catches by night trap.

Rodents were identified on the basis of their morphol-
ogy or using species primer specific and/or barcoding

assignment. Complete data for animals used as reference
for barcoding assignment are available on the 'Barcoding
Tool/RodentSEA' section of the CERoPath project web
site: http://www.ceropath.org/.

Overall, 2,427 murine rodents trapped in the seven
study sites were integrated into a Geographic Informa-
tion System (GIS) based on the geographic coordinates
of their sampling site. They represent a total of 30 species,
but include 12 species with less than 10 specimens.

Environmental indices

For each site, recent 2007–2008 high spatial resolution
SPOT satellite images were acquired. When possible,
cloud-free scenes (i.e. from the dry season) were chosen.
The scenes had a pixel size of 2.5 m in panchromatic
mode and 10 m in multispectral mode. SPOT-Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 20 m
together with the SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission, http://srtm.usgs.gov/) DEM (90 m resolution)
was also acquired. These DEMs allow several calcula-
tions to describe the topography, including the slope and
the delineation of watersheds.

For each site the SPOT scene was classified into
different land-cover types using an object-based ap-
proach (eCognition Developer® commercial software).
Each scene was first segmented into objects which were
then classified using a supervised process based on three
types of object properties: intrinsic characteristics (re-
flectance values, slope values, shape and texture), topo-
logic characteristics (relations to neighboring objects)
and contextual characteristics (semantic relationships
between objects). They were merged into five main
classes: forest, steep agriculture land, flat agriculture
land, water, and built-up surfaces that are present in the
seven study sites. Classification accuracy was assessed by
field observations and photo interpretation using Google
Earth® – see (24) for more information. The land-
cover maps of the seven sites can be visualized at www.
ceropath.org.

The land-cover maps and the DEM were integrated
into a GIS in order to compute some landscape metrics
for each trapping site. As we are interested for this
comparative analysis at indentifying preferred habitats of
rodent species, and not the structure of the landscape, we
computed minimal distances between each individual and
each land-cover type (only for those having a precise
geographic location of accuracy 1 and 2): distance to
forests, distance to steep agriculture lands (i.e. non-
flooded), distance to flat agriculture lands (i.e. flooded,
irrigated, paddy fields), distance to built zones (i.e.
villages, cities), distance to water areas (i.e. ponds, lakes,
rivers), elevation and slope.

The mean values of these metrics were then calcula-
ted for each species of rodents (with accuracy values of
1 or 2) (Table 1).
<table><caption>Table 1. Average attributes of spatial indices (in meter) for the rodent species trapped in seven localities of Southeast Asia (Thailand, Lao PDR and Cambodia)</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>Elevation</th><th>Slope</th><th>Distance to forest</th><th>Distance to steep agriculture</th><th>Distance to flat agriculture</th><th>Distance to built area</th><th>Distance to water</th><th>Total rodents (accuracy 1 and 2)</th><th>Total trapped rodents (accuracy 1, 2 and 3)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bandicota indica</td><td>227</td><td>2</td><td>57</td><td>366</td><td>32</td><td>241</td><td>955</td><td>127</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>Bandicota savilei</td><td>178</td><td>2</td><td>150</td><td>1126</td><td>8</td><td>588</td><td>2502</td><td>72</td><td>131</td></tr><tr><td>Beryllmys berdmorei</td><td>126</td><td>5</td><td>23</td><td>348</td><td>85</td><td>232</td><td>833</td><td>26</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Maxomys surifer</td><td>79</td><td>6</td><td>15</td><td>243</td><td>54</td><td>247</td><td>1493</td><td>78</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><td>Mus caroli</td><td>310</td><td>4</td><td>76</td><td>193</td><td>104</td><td>375</td><td>2178</td><td>110</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Mus cervicolor</td><td>263</td><td>3</td><td>197</td><td>547</td><td>271</td><td>198</td><td>512</td><td>82</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>Mus cookii</td><td>343</td><td>6</td><td>68</td><td>94</td><td>119</td><td>234</td><td>3124</td><td>141</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>Niviventer fulvescens</td><td>187</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>514</td><td>70</td><td>274</td><td>1797</td><td>75</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus argentiventer</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>366</td><td>1414</td><td>39</td><td>58</td><td>281</td><td>12</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus exulans</td><td>139</td><td>2</td><td>110</td><td>1216</td><td>42</td><td>192</td><td>1184</td><td>226</td><td>509</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus losea</td><td>291</td><td>4</td><td>66</td><td>193</td><td>76</td><td>586</td><td>1911</td><td>90</td><td>110</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus norvegicus</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>175</td><td>942</td><td>72</td><td>9</td><td>185</td><td>17</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus tanezumi</td><td>231</td><td>3</td><td>72</td><td>511</td><td>56</td><td>115</td><td>1314</td><td>219</td><td>353</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Parasite diversity

We compiled surveys of microparasites investigated in rodents trapped in SEA and published in the literature (29). The data comprise a total of 20,272 rodents from 13 species of murine rodents that have been investigated for a total of 10 important microparasites' taxa (Table 2). This microparasite dataset helped at obtaining the overall microparasite diversity of rodents. Therefore, it does not concern the same rodent individuals as those trapped by the CERoPath project, which has only investigated a few microparasites, which are incorporated in this dataset (30, 31) (but see www.ceropath.org). The microparasites were viruses, bacteria and protozoans. Viruses were all zoonotic and included hantaviruses, Lymphocytic chorioameningitis virus (family Arenaviridae, genus Arenavirus), Rabies virus, and Hepatitis E virus. The bacteria were also all zoonotic and concerned *Leptospira spp.* agents of leptospirosis, *Bartonella spp.* agents of bartonellosis and *Orientia tsutsugamushi*, the agent of Scrub Typhus. *Bartonella sp.* and *Orientia tsutsugamushi* are arthropod-borne agents, whereas *Leptospira spp.* are indirectly transmitted via contact with water or soils contaminated by urine of infected rodents. Finally, protozoans investigated were *Toxoplasma gondii* and *Babesia spp.*, both also zoonotic, notably for *Toxoplasma gondii*. Microparasite richness was defined as the number of pathogen species for which each rodent species was found positive.

## Statistical analysis

We performed a principal components analysis (PCA) on individual number of rodent species trapped in each of the four types of habitat (i.e. low resolution) to illustrate their distributions using the package 'ade4' in R software (R Development Core Team, 2010).

In order to better estimate the preferred habitat of rodent species, we performed tree regression analysis (TRA) (32, 33) on the minimal distances between each individual rodent and each land-cover habitat type using package tree in the R software (R Development Core Team, 2010).

We performed generalized linear models (GLM) to identify the likely variables that may explain the microbial diversity of rodents using the R software (R Development Core Team, 2010). We performed a multiple regression with microparasite species richness as the dependent variable and environmental indices as the independent variables: distance to forest, distance to steep agriculture land, distance to flat agriculture land, distance to built-up zones, distance to water, and slope (which refers to each individual rodent trap). We selected the models using a backward procedure and the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) to identify the minimal adequate model. As colinearity was found high between some of explanatory variables, we selected among these
<table><caption>Table 2. Survey of infection by microparasites (viruses, bacteria, protozoans) of rodent species in Thailand, Lao PDR and Cambodia, with number of investigated individuals for each species [see references in supplementary materials of Herbreteau et al. (29) with additional data from Angelakis et al. 2009 (49), Bai et al. 2009 (48), Bai et al. 2009 (49), Ivanova et al. (30), Jiyipong et al. (31)]</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>Leptospira</th><th>Orientia spp</th><th>Bartonella spp</th><th>Hantavirus</th><th>Herpes virus</th><th>LCM virus</th><th>Rabies virus</th><th>Toxoplasma gondii</th><th>Trypanosoma spp</th><th>Babesia spp.</th><th>Total microparasites</th><th>Total rodents</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bandicota indica</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>3839</td></tr><tr><td>Bandicota savilei</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>1176</td></tr><tr><td>Berylmys berdmorei</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>Maxomys surifer</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>464</td></tr><tr><td>Mus caroli</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>211</td></tr><tr><td>Mus cervicolor</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>256</td></tr><tr><td>Mus cookii</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>148</td></tr><tr><td>Niviventer fulvescens</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus argentiventer</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>534</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus exulans</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3289</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus losea</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>899</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus norvegicus</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>1405</td></tr><tr><td>Rattus tanezumi</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>7808</td></tr><tr><td>Total rodents</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>20272</td></tr></tbody></table>

associated variables by testing them successively, retaining the variables providing the lowest AIC.

We conducted analysis on raw data for the 13 rodent species for which we have obtained average estimates of their distribution according to the above spatial indices (Table 1) and that have been investigated sufficiently for microparasite richness (Table 2).

We compared the results of the GLM with a tree regression analysis on the same independent variables to explain microparasite species richness.

## Phylogenetic test

Two or more rodent species may share similar micro-parasite species richness, and potentially the same microparasite species, because they have inherited them from a common ancestor and/or because they have co-evolved with certain species of macroparasites. This long-term co-evolution may explain patterns of specificity (such as hantaviruses with some Rattini hosts). Co-evolutionary relationships may be then more important than actual ecology at shaping the diversity and richness of microparasites. To avoid these phylogenetic influences when investigating patterns of parasite species richness, we tested our predictions using the independent contrasts method (34). The phylogeny of rodents follows the recent study of Pages et al. (35) on SEA murids. Contrasts were calculated using Ape (36) implemented in R (R Development Core Team, 2010). Contrasts were then analyzed with all correlations between contrasts forced through the origin (37). We conducted the phylogenetic test on the model selected using the raw data.

## Results

PCA on an individual number of rodent species trapped in each the four types of habitat showed that the first two axes accounted for most of the total variability in the data set. The first axis explained 46.5% of the variability, and the second axis explained 39% of the variability (Fig. 1). Habitat preference, as this level of characterization, seems to be the case for some of these rodent species. *Rattus exulans* and *R. norvegicus* were found mainly in household. Some other species showed a strong preference for rain-fed paddy fields (*Bandicota indica*, *R. argentiventer*) or forests (*Leopoldamys edwardsi*, *Maxomys surifer*). However some rodent species show preference for two habitats, such as *Mus cervicolor* in flooded and non-flooded fields. *Rattus tanezumi* is the one that shows no preference and that can be found in all of the four habitats.

Tree regression analysis allowed a better characterization of the distribution of several rodent species in relation to the minimum distance to each of the main habitats, slope, and elevation (Fig. 2). In particular, *R. tanezumi* and the three species of *Mus* were confirmed to occur in various habitats. But, the main striking result is
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Distribution of rodent species according to habitat types: paddy fields (lowland rain-fed), non-flooded lands, forests, households and settlement) on the two first axes of a principal component analysis. The axis 1 and 2 accounted for 85% of the variance. (B.ind: Bandicota; B.sav: Bandicota savilei; B.berd: Berrylymys berdmorei; B.bow: Berrylymys bowersi; L.edw: Leopoldamys edwarsi; M.sur: Maxomys surifer; M.car: Mus caroli; M.cer: Mus cervicolor; M.coo: Mus cooki; N.fulv: Niviventer fulvescens; R.arg: Rattus argentiventer; R.exu: Rattus exulans; R.los = Rattus losea; R.norv = Rattus norvegicus; R.tan = R.tanezumi).</figcaption></figure>

the ubiquitous distribution of *Rattus exulans*, which may
be found in isolated households or small settlements for
almost all kinds of habitat.

We conducted analysis on raw data for the 13 rodent
species and found that the best model, using the AIC
criterion, showed that microparasite species richness was
negatively correlated with distance to flat agriculture area
(i.e. paddy fields) and negatively to the slope (Table 3).
Microparasite species richness was found related to
rodents trapped near flat agriculture area. Moreover,
the microparasite species richness decreased sharply at
less than 100 m (Fig. 3A).

We obtained similar results using tree regression analy-
sis with a distance from flat agriculture <63 m character-
ized by a high microparasite species richness (7.0 in mean),
and a distance from flat agriculture >63 m characterized
by a microparasite species richness (2.7 in mean).

The analysis on the independent contrasts of agricul-
ture flat and microparasite species richness established
that microparasite species richness was found also related
to flat agriculture area. However, a slight increase of
microparasite species richness was observed in rodents
found far from flat agricultural areas (Fig. 3B).

Discussion

Distribution of rodents in habitat

This study has permitted to improve the knowledge
on habitat preference of SEA rodents. Although the

principal component analysis on rodent occurrence in the
main habitats gave similar results as previously obtained
in the sites of Cambodia (30), the TR and GLM models
improved our knowledge on the environmental niches of
these rodents using land covers and geo-referencing to
main habitats. Interestingly, if we confirm the habitat
specificity for some species, such as *M. surifer* in forest or
*R. norvigicus* in houses, the results of these models
suggest large habitat range for species like *R. tanezumi*,
*M. cooki* and even more surprisingly for *R. exulans*. This
later species is mostly restricted to houses and the
surrounding area but can also be found in almost every
isolated household or small settlement within any kind of
surrounding habitat.

High microparasite diversity in flat agriculture
areas

Most of studies related to rodent-borne diseases to
date focused on one pathogen, notably hantaviruses or
arenaviruses, trying to link habitat characteristics, struc-
ture of rodent communities or season to prevalence of
infections in rodents or to human outbreaks. The main
limit of such studies is that they ignore the great diversity
of pathogens circulating in rodents, particularly in the
tropical areas where microparasite diversity is higher
compared to the temperate zones (38). Our comparative
analysis using two important datasets (i.e. 1,275 of 2,070
rodents for the computation of environmental indices
and more than 20,000 rodents for the estimation of
microbial diversity) is one of the few that questions the
environmental determinants of parasite diversity in
tropical area. Both TR and GLM models showed similar
results with higher microparasite species richness that can
be harbored in rodents trapped close to flat agriculture
fields. This comparative analysis allows us to infer that
higher microparasite diversity in rodents is found in
agricultural lands in flat or low-slope areas in SEA.
Moreover, and importantly, it seems that a threshold
is observed (Fig. 3A). Beyond 100 m a sharp decrease
in microparasite diversity was observed. Clearly, this
suggests that rodents with an environmental niche away
from irrigated/flooded rice fields, according to their
geo-localized distribution in the seven studied localities,
harboring potentially less microparasites species, may
poorly participate in parasite transmission. This result
is very intriguing as it is usually expected that forests
are the more favorable habitats to insure parasite
transmission as observed in different vector-borne disease
systems (39, 40). However, other studies that focused
on helminth parasitism have led to contrasted results
with higher parasite species richness in disturbed habitats
or logged forests for some worms but not for others
(41).

On the contrary, our results rather sustain the emer-
ging pattern that hosts living in human-modified habitats
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Regression tree model explaining distribution of rodents in relation to distance to main habitats: forest, steep agriculture, flat agriculture, settlement, and with slope and elevation.</figcaption></figure>

may harbor higher parasite loads and/or that vectors may be more abundant in such areas (11, 13, 18, 42, 43). Moreover, the negative correlation between parasite diversity and slope stresses that some factors in cultivated and often flooded lowlands, notably rice fields, are extremely favorable to parasite transmission.

<table><caption>Table 3. Best model explaining microparasite richness in rodents in relation to habitat indices (initial model with distance to forest, distance to steep agriculture, distance to flat agriculture, distance to water, slope, sample size) (AIC = 56.94) (with SD = standard deviation of the slope, P = probability)</caption><thead><tr><th>Independent variables</th><th>Slope (SD, P)</th><th>F-test (P)</th><th>R<sup>2</sup>, F-total (P)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Distance to flat agriculture</td><td>-0.03 (0.008)</td><td>27.56 (0.007)</td><td>R<sup>2</sup> = 0.74<br>F<sub>2,10</sub> = 14.3</td></tr><tr><td>Slope</td><td>-1.23 (0.35)</td><td>49.92 (0.005)</td><td>(0.001)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Interestingly, using the independent contrasts method, a slight increase in microparasite species richness in rodents was observed when moving far from agriculture in flat area. This could be related to more ‘natural conditions’ prone to also favor higher parasite diversity as observed, for example, for helminths in rodents (41).

Should health monitoring continue to focus on rice fields?

Various works established the great biodiversity associated with the rice field agro-system in Asian countries – see (44) for a review. Because important resources are available for various species, rice fields may then be important foraging areas for rodents. This fact is largely sustained by the role of rodents as pests in agriculture in Asia, notably in rice fields where every year they consume food that could feed 200 million people for an entire year (45). Foraging areas are ideal places for parasite
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Relationship between microparasite species richness and distance to flat agriculture (i.e. irrigated/flooded, paddy rice fields) (A) using raw data (the distribution is fitted to a polynomial regression of second order, R2 = 0.63, F2,11 = 8.50, P = 0.007) and (B) using independent contrasts (the distribution is fitted to a polynomial regression of second order without intercept, R2 = 0.41, F2,10 = 3.40, P = 0.07).</figcaption></figure>

transmission due to important host densities promoting direct or indirect intra- or interspecific interactions. Moreover, due to high arthropod diversity in rice fields (44) and high rodent densities, we may expect enhanced encounters or exchanges with multiple vectors such as ticks or mites (46). Finally, persistence of water in flat and flooded areas may be an important factor to insure parasite persistence in the environment, notably for *Leptospira* (30).

However, rice fields are historical elements of SEA landscapes, which are more concerned today by major changes such as increased deforestation or urbanization. The other main problem that faces SEA countries is associated to the changes in climate variability such as rainfall patterns (monsoon) by increasing risks of disease outbreaks linked to heavy rainfalls and extreme floods (47).

## Conclusion

This study improves our knowledge on the distribution of rodents in SEA and particularly the synanthropic rodents such as *R. tanezumi* and *R. exulans*, which showed low habitat specificity using geo-referenced trapped position in land covers. *Rattus exulans* even if mostly restricted to households can be found in every isolated small settlement within any kind of surrounding habitat. The comparative analyses using either GLM or TR models showed that microparasites species-rich rodents were found near flat agriculture fields (i.e. paddy fields) suggesting that this habitat may favor microparasite transmission and should be targeted for rodent-borne disease surveillance. Future studies should investigate local microparasite diversity at small scales by taking into account the structure of the landscape (i.e. habitat diversity and fragmentation).
## Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the French ANR Biodiversity grant ANR 07 BDIV 012, CERoPath project 'Community Ecology of Rodents and Their Pathogens in a Changing Environment' (www.ceropath.org), and by the French ANR CP&ES grant ANR 11 CPEL 002, BiodivHealthSEA (Local impacts and perceptions of global changes: Biodiversity, health and zoonoses in Southeast Asia) (www.biodivhealthsea.org). SPOT images and SPOT DEMs were obtained with financial support of the ISIS (Incitation à l'utilisation scientifique d'images SPOT) program of CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales).

## Conflict of interest and funding

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

## References

1. Brunner JL, Ostfeld RS. Multiple causes of variable tick burdens on small-mammal hosts. Ecology 2008; 89: 2259-72.

2. Paull SH, Song S, McClure KM, Sackett LC, Kilpatrick AM, Johnson PT. From superspreaders to disease hotspots: linking transmission across hosts and space. Front Ecol Environ 2012; 10: 75-82.

3. Tollenaere C, Rahalison L, Ranjalahy M, Duplantier J-M, Rahelinirina S, Telfer S, et al. Susceptibility to Yersinia pestis experimental infection in wild *Rattus rattus*, reservoir of plague in Madagascar. EcoHealth 2010; 7: 242-7.

4. Ostfeld RS, Glass GE, Keesing F. Spatial epidemiology: an emerging (or re-emerging) discipline. Trends Ecol Evol 2005; 20: 328-36.

5. Lambin EF, Tran A, Vanwambeke SO, Linard C, Soti V. Pathogenic landscapes: interactions between land, people, disease vectors, and their animal hosts. Int J Health Geogr 2010; 9: 54.

6. Patz JA, Daszak P, Tabor GM, Aguirre AA, Pearl M, Epstein J, et al. Unhealthy landscapes: policy recommendations on land use change and infectious disease emergence. Environ Health Perspect 2004; 112: 1092-8.

7. Ostfeld RS. Biodiversity loss and the rise of zoonotic pathogens. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009; 15(Suppl 1): 40-3.

8. Randolph SE, Dobson AD. Pangloss revisited: a critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-buffers-disease paradigm. Parasitology 2012; 139: 847-63.

9. Brisson D, Brinkley C, Humphrey PT, Kemps BD, Ostfeld RS. It takes a community to raise the prevalence of a zoonotic pathogen. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis 2011; 2011: 741406.

10. Roche B, Guégan J-F. Ecosystem dynamics, biological diversity and emerging infectious diseases. C R Biol 2011; 334: 385-92.

11. Gillespie TR, Chapman C. Forest fragmentation, the decline of an endangered primate, and changes in host-parasite interactions relative to an unfragmented forest. Am J Primatol 2008; 70: 222-30.

12. Goldberg TL. Forest fragmentation as cause of bacterial transmission among nonhuman primates, humans, and livestock, Uganda. Emerg Infect Dis 2008; 14: 1375-82.

13. Cottontail VM, Wellinghausen N, Kalko EK. Habitat fragmentation and haemoparasites in the common fruit bat, *Artibeus jamaicensis* (Phyllostomidae) in a tropical lowland forest in Panamá. Parasitology 2009; 136: 1133-45.

14. Haydon DT, Cleaveland S, Taylor LH, Laurenson MK. Identifying reservoirs of infection: a conceptual and practical challenge. Emerg Infect Dis 2002; 8: 1468-73.

15. Meerburg BG, Singleton GR, Kijlstra A. Rodent-borne diseases and their risks for public health. Crit Rev Microbiol 2009; 35: 221-70.

16. Kuenzi AJ, Douglass RJ, White D. Antibody to Sin Nombre virus in rodents associated with peridomestic habitats in west central Montana. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2001; 64: 137-46.

17. Olsson GE, Leirs H, Henttonen H. Hantaviruses and their hosts in Europe: reservoirs here and there, but not everywhere? Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2010; 10: 549-61.

18. Suzán G, Armién A, Mills JN. Epidemiological considerations of rodent community composition in fragmented landscapes in Panama. ANYAS 2008; 89: 684-90.

19. McFarlane R, Sleigh A, McMichael T. Synanthropy of wild mammals as a determinant of emerging infectious diseases in the Asian-Australasian region. EcoHealth 2012; 9: 24-35.

20. Ruedas LA, Salazar-Bravo J, Tinnin DS, Armién B, Cáceres L, García A, et al. Community ecology of small mammal populations in Panama following an outbreak of Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. J Vector Ecol 2004; 29: 177-91.

21. Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL. Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 2004; 19: 654-60.

22. Guivier E, Galan M, Chaval Y, Xuéreb A, Ribas Salvador A, Poulle M-L, et al. Landscape genetics highlights the role of bank vole metapopulation dynamics in the epidemiology of Puumala hantavirus. Mol Ecol 2011; 20: 3569-83.

23. Tadin A, Turk N, Korva M, Margaletić J, Beck R, Vucelja M, et al. Multiple co-infections of rodents with hantaviruses, Leptospira, and Babesia in Croatia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2012; 12: 388-92.

24. Telfer S, Birtles R, Bennett M, Lambin X, Paterson S, Begon M. Parasite interactions in natural populations: insights from longitudinal data. Parasitology 2008; 135: 767-81.

25. Bordes F, Morand S. The impact of multiple infections on wild animal hosts: a review. Infect Ecol Epidemiol 2011; 1: 1-10.

26. Bordes F, Morand S. Parasite diversity: an overlooked metric of parasite pressures? Oikos 2009; 118: 801-6.

27. Morand S. Infectious diseases, biodiversity and global changes: how the biodiversity sciences may help. In: Lopez PJ, ed. The importance of biological interactions in the study of biodiversity. Book 3. New York, USA: InTech; 2010, pp. 231-54. DOI: 10.5772/1831.

28. Dupuy S, Herbreteau V, Feyfant T, Morand S, Tran A. Land cover dynamics in Southeast Asia: contribution of object-oriented techniques for change detection. Geobia 2012. Proceedings of the 4th Geobia, Rio-de-Janairo, Brazil, 7-9 May, 217-22.

29. Herbreteau V, Bordes F, Jittapalapong S, Supputamongkol Y, Morand S. Rodent-borne diseases in Thailand: targeting rodent carriers and risky habitats. Infect Ecol Epidemiol 2012; 2: 2-6.

30. Ivanova S, Herbreteau V, Blasdell K, Chaval Y, Buchy P, Guillard B, et al. Leptospira and rodents in Cambodia: environmental determinants of infection. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2012; 86: 1032-8.

31. Jiyipong T, Jittapalapong S, Morand S, Raoult D, Rolain J-M. Prevalence and genetic diversity of Bartonella spp. in small mammals from Southeastern Asia. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012; 78: 8463-6.

32. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 2010; 1: 3-14.

33. Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA, Bradbury RB, Freckleton RP. Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? J Anim Ecol 2006; 75: 1182-9.

34. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 1985; 125: 1-15.
35. Pagès M, Chaval Y, Herbreteau V, Waengsothorn S, Cosson J-F, Hugot J-P, et al. Revisiting the taxonomy of the Rattini tribe: a phylogeny-based delimitation of species boundaries. BMC Evol Biol 2010; 10: 184.

36. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 2004; 20: 289-90.

37. Garland T, Harvey H, Ives R. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 1992; 41: 18-32.

38. Bordes F, Guégan JF, Morand S. Microparasite species richness in rodents is higher at lower latitudes and is associated with reduced litter size. Oikos 2011; 120: 1889-96.

39. Bonneaud C, Sepil I, Milá B, Buermann W, Pollinger J, Sehgal RNM, et al. The prevalence of avian Plasmodium is higher in undisturbed tropical forests of Cameroon. J Trop Ecol 2009; 25: 439.

40. Chasar A, Loiseau C, Valkiunas G, Iezhova T, Smith TB, Sehgal RNM. Prevalence and diversity patterns of avian blood parasites in degraded African rainforest habitats. Mol Ecol 2009; 18: 4121-33.

41. Wells K, Smales LR, Kalko EKV, Pfeiffer M. Impact of rain-forest logging on helminth assemblages in small mammals (Muridae, Tupaiidae) from Borneo. J Trop Ecol 2007; 23: 35.

42. Friggens MM, Beier P. Anthropogenic disturbance and the risk of flea-borne disease transmission. Oecologia 2010; 164: 809-20.

43. Gottdenker NL, Calzada JE, Saldaña A, Carroll CR. Association of anthropogenic land use change and increased abundance of the Chagas disease vector Rhodnius pallescens in a rural landscape of Panama. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2011; 84: 70-7.

44. Bambaradenyia CNB, Amerasinghe FP. Biodiversity associated with the rice field agroecosystem in Asian countries: a brief review. Working paper 63. Colombo: International Water Management Institute; 2003.

45. Stenseth NC, Leirs H, Skonhoft A, Davis SA, Pech RP, Andreassen HP, et al. Mice and rats: the dynamics and bio-economics of agricultural rodents pests In a nutshell. Front Ecol Environ 2003; 1: 367-75.

46. Monello RJ, Gompper ME. Differential effects of experimental increases in sociality on ectoparasites of free-ranging raccoons. J Anim Ecol 2010; 79: 602-9.

47. Planchon O, Thothong W, Herbreteau V, Morand S, Valentin C. Environmental changes in Northern Thailand: possible links to rodent-borne diseases. Southeast Asian. J Trop Med Publ Health. 2013; in press.

48. Angelakis E, Khamphoukeo K, Grice D, Newton PN, Roux V, Aplin K, et al. Molecular detection of Bartonella species in rodents from the Lao PDR. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009; 15(Suppl 2): 95-7.

49. Bai Y, Kosoy MY, Lerdthusnee K, Peruski LF, Richardson JH. Prevalence and genetic heterogeneity of Bartonella strains cultured from rodents from 17 provinces in Thailand. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2009; 81: 811-6.

<footnote>*Serge Morand</footnote>

<footnote>Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution</footnote>

<footnote>UMR CNRS-IRD-UM2, CC65</footnote>

<footnote>Université de Montpellier 2</footnote>

<footnote>F-34095 Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote>Tel: +33 (0) 6 88 50 57 13</footnote>

<footnote>Email: serge.morand@univ-montp2.fr</footnote>