Interactions between the invasive Burmese python, Python bivittatus Kuhl, and the local mosquito community in Florida, USA

Lawrence E. Reeves; Kenneth L. Krysko; Michael L. Avery; Jennifer L. Gillett-Kaufman; Akito Y. Kawahara; C. Roxanne Connelly; Phillip E. Kaufman

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190633

Abstract

The Burmese python, Python bivittatus Kuhl, is a well-established invasive species in the greater Everglades ecosystem of southern Florida, USA. Most research on its ecological impacts focuses on its role as a predator and its trophic interactions with native vertebrate species, particularly mammals. Beyond predation, there is little known about the ecological interactions between P. bivittatus and native faunal communities. It is likely that established populations of P. bivittatus in southern Florida serve as hosts for native mosquito communities. To test this concept, we used mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I DNA barcoding to determine the hosts of blood fed mosquitoes collected at a research facility in northern Florida where captive P. bivittatus and Argentine black and white tegu, Salvator merianae (Duméril and Bibron), are maintained in outdoor enclosures, accessible to local mosquitoes. We recovered python DNA from the blood meals of three species of Culex mosquitoes: Culex erraticus (Dyar and Knab), Culex quinquefasciatus Say, and Culex pilosus (Dyar and Knab). Culex erraticus conclusively (P = 0.001; Fisher’s Exact Test) took more blood meals from P. bivittatus than from any other available host. While the majority of mosquito blood meals in our sample were derived from P. bivittatus, only one was derived from S. merianae. These results demonstrate that local mosquitoes will feed on invasive P. bivittatus, a recently introduced host. If these interactions also occur in southern Florida, P. bivittatus may be involved in the transmission networks of mosquito-vectored pathogens. Our results also illustrate the potential of detecting the presence of P. bivittatus in the field through screening mosquito blood meals for their DNA.

Citation: Reeves LE, Krysko KL, Avery ML, Gillett-Kaufman JL, Kawahara AY, Connelly CR, et al. (2018) Interactions between the invasive Burmese python, Python bivittatus Kuhl, and the local mosquito community in Florida, USA. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0190633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190633

Editor: Richard Paul, Institut Pasteur, FRANCE

Received: October 4, 2017; Accepted: December 18, 2017; Published: January 17, 2018

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (http://www.nsf.gov) Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 00107251 to LER. Additional support for this study was provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center (http://www.usda.gov). Publication of this article was funded in part by the University of Florida Open Access Publishing Fund. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Introductions of plant and animal species to areas outside their native ranges can destabilize ecosystems [1, 2], contribute to biotic homogenization [3], impose public health risks [4], and impose large economic costs through direct damage or mitigation efforts [5]. Introduced animal species interact with various ecological components within ecosystems. Direct competitive and trophic interactions are traditionally considered the primary drivers of invasive species-associated impacts. However, direct or indirect interactions with native pathogens or parasites similarly may lead to damaging impacts and may go undetected. Species introductions have the potential to dramatically alter the prevalence or transmission systems of parasites and pathogens through the introduction of novel vectors [6], spillover of co-introduced pathogens from introduced hosts to native hosts [7], or spillback of endemic pathogens to native hosts through competent introduced reservoir hosts [8].

In the United States, Florida is particularly susceptible to species introductions [9, 10]. The state has both tropical and subtropical climates, major international ports of entry for tourists and commercial goods from the Caribbean, South America and elsewhere, active horticultural and captive wildlife industries, and empty niches created by human altered environments [11]. These factors facilitate the introduction and establishment of many non-native species, particularly, amphibian and reptile taxa. Currently, at least 180 non-native herpetofaunal taxa have been introduced to the state and 63 are established, more than in any other U.S. state or global region [12]. Some of these species, such as the Burmese python, Python bivittatus, and Argentine black and white tegu, Salvator merianae, are high profile invasive species that have attracted public attention and scientific interest [13].

Python bivittatus is presumed to have been introduced to the Flamingo area of Everglades National Park prior to 1985 and became established thereafter [14–16]. Python bivittatus is an opportunistic predator of mammals, birds and reptiles. In Florida, its diet consists of both small and large animals including protected and managed species, such as wading birds, alligators and deer, and federally protected species [17–20]. Research on the ecological impacts of P. bivittatus are largely limited to its trophic interactions and direct effects on prey populations. The establishment and expansion of python populations is correlated with precipitous declines in relative abundance of several mammal species [21–23]. Through the diminished abundance or extirpation of mammalian mesopredators, a cascade of python-mediated indirect effects is possible [24].

The integration of a novel, large-bodied predator into the ecosystems of southern Florida has the potential to alter the transmission dynamics of endemic parasites and pathogens. In Florida, mosquitoes are the vectors of numerous zoonotic parasites and pathogens, many of which are poorly known. Species diversity and composition of vertebrate host communities are among the factors that structure transmission networks and affect the prevalence of mosquito-vectored pathogens [25]. In much of southern Florida, P. bivittatus is an available host for a diverse mosquito fauna (Fig 1) that includes more than 50 native and introduced mosquito species, some of which are potential pathogen vectors [26]. Females of many North American mosquito species take blood meals from reptilian hosts, and some specialize entirely on ectothermic hosts [27, 28]. Through mosquito feeding, there is potential that pythons are exposed to mosquito-vectored parasites and pathogens and it is possible that P. bivittatus is now directly involved in the transmission of endemic parasites and pathogens. Further, by dramatically restructuring the vertebrate host community and eliminating some host taxa through predation, the establishment of P. bivittatus may have broader implications for mosquito-borne pathogen transmission in Florida.

Download:

Fig 1. Burmese python (Python bivittatus) and Aedes taeniorhynchus mosquitoes in Everglades National Park, October 2015.

In the Greater Everglades Ecosystem of southern Florida, introduced populations of P. bivittatus are sympatric with a local mosquito fauna that includes more than 50 native and introduced mosquito species.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190633.g001

The diversity, host range, vectors, and transmission dynamics of many mosquito-vectored reptile pathogens are poorly known. While no known data are available on the pathogens of P. bivittatus in its native or introduced range, squamates (lizards and snakes) in Florida are the hosts of many mosquito-borne parasites including species of the taxonomically diverse genera Hepatozoon (Apicomplexa: Adeleorina) and Plasmodium (Apicomplexa: Haemosporida) [29–31]. Similarly, the role of snakes in the transmission systems of medically-important mosquito-borne viruses is not well understood. However, snakes are competent hosts for the medically-important zoonoses Eastern equine encephalitis virus, Western equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, and may promote the persistence of these viruses within an ecosystem [32–35].

The intent of this study is to determine if local mosquito communities interact with P. bivittatus, an introduced host. Native mosquito species have been documented feeding from other exotic reptile species in Florida [36], but interactions between P. bivittatus and mosquitoes are not known in the state. Determining whether native mosquitoes feed upon P. bivittatus and identifying those species is the first step towards understanding any potential pathogen transmission implications of python establishment in Florida. Using traditional survey methods (i.e., transect walks, road surveys), P. bivittatus is difficult to detect in the habitats it occupies. Environmental DNA approaches using water sampling have been proposed to improve the ability of detecting P. bivittatus at field sites in southern Florida [37, 38]. If mosquitoes take blood meals from P. bivittatus, mosquito blood meals could be used as an alternative source of environmental DNA in monitoring python populations.

Materials and methods

Mosquito sampling

Mosquitoes were collected at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) (29° 39' 14.6", N 82° 17' 17.1" W; datum WGS84, elev. 45 m), in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida, USA. At this facility, eight adult P. bivittatus and 12 adult S. merianae were housed individually in outdoor pens arranged in three parallel rows (Fig 2) where they were accessible to the local mosquito community. One row of eight adjacent python pens (1.5 m wide × 3.0 m deep × 1.8 m high) was located approximately 20 m from two rows of six adjacent tegu pens (1.5 m wide × 3.0 m deep × 1.8 m high). Rows of tegu pens were approximately 4 m apart. Pen walls and ceilings consisted of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) coated steel wire mesh with square openings 2.54 × 2.54 cm. Each reptile pen included an animal shelter. Python pens each contained one 1 × 1 × 0.5 m insulated plastic box with a 15 × 30 cm opening. Tegu pens each had one artificial burrow consisting of a 1.5 m tunnel made from 10.2 cm diameter corrugated plastic tubing leading to an underground chamber (48 × 66 × 33 cm). All python and tegu pens were positioned within a larger, aviary-like enclosure (60 × 30 × 4 m) of fiber netting (mesh size ~2.5 cm). Vegetation within this enclosure and surrounding reptile pens was limited to grasses consistently maintained by mowing, a few small thickets of saw palmetto, Serenoa repens, and young hardwood trees. The vegetation immediately surrounding the larger enclosure consisted of a pine flatwoods community with a canopy of Pinus palustris, and Pinus elliotti, interspersed with hardwoods, and an understory dominated by saw palmetto.

Download:

Fig 2. Location of mosquito resting shelter traps in relation to reptile pens.

Arrangement (from above) of pens (light gray shaded boxes) housing Burmese (Python bivittatus) or Argentine black and white tegu (Salvator merianae) where blood fed mosquitoes were collected in resting shelter traps (stars) at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center in Gainesville, Florida, USA. Pens were set within the perimeter of a 60 × 30 × 4 m aviary-like enclosure (dark outer line). Two shelter traps were placed alongside python pens, two alongside tegu pens, and one in a saw palmetto thicket between the two pens. Areas that are shaded darker gray indicate areas of natural, unmaintained vegetation. Unshaded areas indicate mowed grassy areas.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190633.g002

Mosquitoes were collected from July-October 2015 and April-December 2016. Mosquitoes were not collected from November 2015–March 2016 when snakes were relocated to indoor enclosures to avoid potentially cold temperatures. Five resting shelter traps were placed inside the larger enclosure. Two traps were located alongside the python pens, two alongside the tegu pens, and one in a saw palmetto thicket (Fig 2). Resting shelter traps were constructed after Burkett-Cadena [39], and consisted of a 1 × 2 m section of 5.1 × 10.2 cm steel fencing, rolled into a cylindrical frame, set inside a 159 L black heavy-duty trash bag to make a cylinder, open at one end. The trash bag was secured tightly to the frame with duct tape. To remove mosquitoes from the traps, the open end of the resting shelter was covered by a 76 × 102 cm piece of cardboard that had a 9 cm circular hole cut in the center. The hole was positioned over the opening of the trap and a battery-powered aspirator, made from a modified 12V vacuum (BioQuip Products, Rancho Domiguez, CA), was turned on and held parallel to the hole, immediately outside the trap. The trap was then shaken vigorously to flush resting mosquitoes. The aspirator collected mosquitoes attempting to escape the shelter through the hole in the cardboard cover. After shaking, the cardboard cover was removed and the aspirator, still running, was moved to the interior of trap to collect any mosquitoes that had not attempted to exit through the hole in the cover.

We collected mosquitoes from one to three times per week, between 0800 and 0900 and immediately transported them 10.8 km to the Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Collected mosquitoes were killed within 30 minutes of collection by exposure to ethyl acetate for approximately 10 minutes. Mosquitoes were visually inspected under a stereoscope for the presence of a blood meal and identified to species using a morphological taxonomic key to adult females [26]. Gut contents of blood fed mosquitoes were preserved on Whatman^® four-sample Flinders Technology Associates (FTA) cards [40]. Each blood fed mosquito was assigned a unique number and transferred to the sampling area of an FTA card. For blood fed females, a sterile pipette tip was used to apply pressure to the abdomen, releasing the blood meal onto the card. The blood meal was spread over the sampling area of the FTA card with the pipette tip until all viscous droplets were absorbed. The extent of blood meal digestion was visually estimated by scoring blood meals on a rank of 1–3; an approach modified from Detinova [41]. The following scores were based on the stage of digestion after feeding: (1) fresh blood meal, bright red in color, large size in proportion to mosquito abdomen and absence of visible developing ovaries; (2) blood meal that was still red in color, but developing ovaries were apparent; and (3) smaller blood meal, characterized by a brownish or blackish color, and ovaries that occupied more than 50% of the abdomen.

A subset of the collected male and unfed female mosquitoes (n = 23, representing all species collected) were processed identically and served as negative controls, with the contents of the abdomen spread over the sampling area of the FTA card with a sterile pipette tip. FTA cards were then labeled and stored at room temperature until DNA extraction.

Blood meal analysis

DNA was extracted following the HotSHOT method [42] using hot sodium hydroxide to lyse cells and a Tris-hydrogen chloride neutralization buffer solution. For each FTA card-preserved blood meal, a hole punch was used to remove two circular 1 mm diameter sections of the FTA card sampling area. The two FTA-card sections were transferred to a 0.2 mL tube with flame-sterilized forceps. Initially, 50 μL of lysis solution (25 mM NaOH and 0.2 mM EDTA) was added to each tube. Tubes were then incubated in a BioRad^® DNA Engine thermocycler at 95°C for 30 minutes followed by 4°C for five minutes. Thereafter, 50 μL of neutralization solution (40 mM Tris-HCl) was added to each tube and vortexed for ~10 s. Extracted DNA was stored at -20°C until PCR.

A degenerate primer set [43] was used to amplify a 664 base pair (bp) fragment of the vertebrate host cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene (COI). Three nucleotide mismatches at the forward priming site of mosquito templates inhibited co-amplification of mosquito DNA. The primers RepCOI-F (5’-TNT TMT CAA CNA ACC ACA AAG A-3’) and RepCOI-R (5’-ACT TCT GGR TGK CCA AAR AAT CA-3’) were used in 20 μL reactions each consisting of 4 μL 10X PCR buffer, 0.6 μL 50 mM MgCl₂, 0.4 μL of 10 mM dNTPs, 0.48 μL of each 10 mM primer, 0.2 μL of Taq polymerase (5 U/μL), 1 μL of extracted DNA, and 12.84 μL of sterile, double distilled water. Reaction conditions followed a standard profile of 94°C for 3 min, followed by 40 cycles of 94°C for 40 s, 48.5°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 60 s, and a final extension step of 72°C for 7 min. Reaction products were stained with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultra-violet light on a 1.5% agarose gel. A 50 bp DNA ladder (Invitrogen^TM) was used to determine the approximate fragment size of PCR products. Negative controls in which sterile, double-distilled water was used in place of extracted DNA were included in all reactions to monitor for contamination. All PCR products a visible band at the expected fragment size were sent to the University of Florida Interdisciplinary Center for Biotechnology Research, Gainesville, Florida, for Sanger sequencing on an ABI 3130^® automated sequencer. Resulting sequencing chromatograms were examined for quality and edited to truncate ambiguous terminal stretches from the sequence using the software Geneious^® Version R10 [44]. Edited sequences were searched on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/) using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST). Species-level taxonomic identities were assigned to blood meals when a host sequence was ≥ 98% homologous to a sequence referenced in the database [45] or sequences obtained from museum specimens.

Statistical analyses were performed in the statistical program R^® Version 3.2.0 using the stats package [46]. For each mosquito species that was determined to feed from P. bivittatus, we used Fisher’s Exact Test to compare the proportion of blood meals derived from P. bivittatus to the proportion derived from all other identified host species. Results of these tests were considered significant if p < 0.05. No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.

Results

We collected a total of 511 adult female mosquitoes using resting shelter traps (325 traps nights) from the USDA NWRC. This sample represented seven species in four genera (Table 1). Culex erraticus was the most abundant species collected and represented 72% of all adult females collected. Culex quinquefasciatus, and to a lesser extent, Cx. pilosus and Aedes albopictus also were common, together representing 24% of the total sample. Aedes infirmatus, Anopheles crucians, and Uranotaenia lowii were collected in small numbers (< 10 individuals, each species). We observed other mosquito species (including Mansonia sp., Coquillettidia perturbans, Ps. ciliata, Psorophora ferox, and an Aedes (Ochlerotatus) species) searching for hosts or feeding from humans at the site, but these species were absent from our resting shelter samples.

Download:

Table 1. Taxonomic composition of female mosquitoes collected in resting shelters at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA over 325 trap nights between July 2015 and December 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190633.t001

Sixty-one (12.3%) of the 511 adult female mosquitoes in our sample had visible blood meals. The majority of blood-fed specimens were Culex erraticus (n = 51; 84% of blood fed specimens), while five or fewer (< 8% of blood fed specimens) blood-fed An. crucians, Cx. pilosus, and Cx. quinquefaciatus were collected. Aedes albopictus, Ae. infirmatus, and Ur. lowii were not represented in our sample of blood fed mosquitoes.

Polymerase chain reactions successfully amplified a DNA template of the expected target size (664 bp) from 57 of 61 (93.4%) mosquito blood meal samples, but failed to produce an amplicon for DNA templates from four blood meals. The likely cause of unsuccessful reactions was an advanced extent of digestion as all four blood meals received a digestion score of 3. The taxonomic origin of host DNA from all other blood meals was identified through Sanger sequencing. Edited chromatograms of host sequences had distinct and well-defined peaks with little background noise, indicating that the sequences were of good quality. No evidence of multiple host feedings was detected in the sequencing chromatograms. The majority of sequences and all sequences derived from P. bivittatus, were 99–100% similar to referenced sequences in the NCBI database. Ten vertebrate host species representing the classes Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia were identified (Table 2). Python bivittatus was identified as the host in 78.4% of blood meal samples. Only one blood meal was attributed to S. merianae. Twelve blood meals had been acquired from other hosts, including humans. Three mosquito species (Cx. erraticus, Cx. pilosus, Cx. quinquefasciatus) had obtained blood meals from P. bivittatus, while no python blood meal was detected in either An. crucians specimen sampled. Three blood meal sequences from Cx. erraticus and Cx. pilosus specimens were ~95% homologous to NCBI-referenced Anolis carolinensis sequences. To confirm that these blood meals were derived from A. carolinensis, their sequences were subsequently aligned to corresponding sequences obtained from A. carolinensis museum specimens (UF-Herpetology 170869, 170871), resulting in ≥99% homology.

Download:

Table 2. Host use of blood fed female mosquitoes collected at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA between July 2015 and December 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190633.t002

In Cx. erraticus, the number of blood meals derived from P. bivittatus was greater than those from all other hosts combined. Forty Cx. erraticus had fed on P. bivittatus, compared to eight that fed from other hosts. At this site, where P. bivittatus was an available host, Cx. erraticus was significantly (P = 0.0002) more likely to feed on P. bivittatus than any other identified host. Culex pilosus and Cx. quinquefasciatus each had taken blood meals from P. bivittatus, but neither was more likely to feed on pythons over other identified host species, although the sample size for each species was small (n < 5).

Discussion

Mosquito species vary in their host-use patterns and vectorial competency to pathogens [47]. The transmission networks of mosquito-vectored pathogens are, in large part, structured by these factors and the diversity of vertebrate communities within an ecosystem [48]. The presence of introduced vertebrate species has direct and indirect implications for mosquito-vectored pathogens [8]. An introduced species that is a competent host for a pathogen may serve as a reservoir of infection, facilitating its transmission to native hosts. Alternatively, introduced species that are not competent can serve as dead-end hosts resulting in reduced pathogen circulation. Introduced vertebrates also can have indirect effects on pathogen transmission networks if they influence or restructure host communities. In southern Florida, where there are >50 species of native and introduced mosquitoes, interactions between mosquitoes and the introduced P. bivittatus have not been previously documented. A first step towards characterizing these interactions is a determination of the mosquito species that are likely to feed on P. bivittatus.

We identified P. bivittatus DNA in the blood meals of three Culex species (Cx. erraticus, Cx. pilosus, and Cx. quinquefasciatus) collected at a facility in northern Florida that housed P. bivittatus in outdoor enclosures, suggesting that when pythons are available hosts, they are likely to be fed upon by local Florida mosquitoes. All three Culex mosquitoes are widely distributed across the southeastern coastal plain and occur throughout Florida. In southern Florida, they are sympatric with established populations of P. bivittatus [26]. Culex mosquitoes take blood meals from mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians in Florida [49]. There is variation among Culex species in their degree of host specialization and preference for certain host classes. Some species feed from a narrow range of vertebrate hosts, while others are relative generalists. We also collected blood-fed An. crucians, but the sample size was small, and only one blood meal was identified, as Sylvilagus floridanus. Anopheles crucians, like other studied Anopheles mosquitoes, feeds predominantly from mammalian hosts. Only one blood meal specimen, from Cx. erraticus, contained S. merianae DNA. Salvator merianae is diurnal, and retreats to underground burrows at night or during unfavorable environmental conditions. Edman et al. [50] suggested that the cavity-roosting habits of woodpeckers make them less susceptible to mosquito feeding. Culex erraticus and Cx. quinquefasciatus search for and feed from hosts nocturnally [51]. Therefore, by spending nights underground, tegus may similarly avoid host-seeking mosquitoes. Alternatively, the artificial burrows inside the enclosures may provide suitable resting sites for mosquitoes that had fed from sleeping tegus, making them disinclined to leave the burrows before blood meals are digested.

Culex erraticus conclusively took more blood meals from P. bivittatus than from any other identified host. This mosquito feeds opportunistically; previous studies have reported either birds or mammals as frequent hosts, with smaller proportions of reptilian, and to a lesser extent, amphibian hosts recorded [27, 52–56]. Combined with our results, this suggests that P. bivittatus is a likely host for Cx. erraticus in southern Florida, where the species co-occur. Sample size was small for both Cx. pilosus and Cx. quinquefasciatus, but P. bivittatus DNA was recovered from two of five, and two of three blood meals, respectively. Culex quinquefasciatus is ornithophilic, and feeds predominantly from birds, especially passerines [49, 57], although reports of frequent mammalian, and occasionally reptilian host use exist [58]. Host associations for Cx. pilosus are not well known, but the available data suggest it feeds primarily on reptiles, particularly lizards [52].

In the southeastern U.S., Cx. erraticus and Cx. quinquefasciatus are medically-important vectors of arboviruses and parasites. Culex erraticus is suspected to be an important bridge vector for the Eastern equine encephalitis virus [59]. In North America, Eastern equine encephalitis virus is circulated and amplified among bird populations by the primary vector, Culiseta melanura, which is ornithophilic and largely specializes on passerines. The virus can escape bird-mosquito transmission to infect mammals and reptiles through competent, more generalist mosquito species. Recent evidence suggests that snakes may be important to the transmission dynamics and overwintering of Eastern equine encephalitis virus [27, 28, 35, 60] and West Nile virus [61]. The overwintering mechanisms of these viruses are unknown. Because these viruses are not transmitted directly from mosquito to mosquito, they may persist through the winter, in the absence of mosquitoes, in infected host animals that remain viremic for extended time periods, such as reptiles [34]. Culex quinquefasciatus is important in the transmission of a wide range of human and wildlife pathogens including viruses (West Nile virus, St. Louis encephalitis virus), avian malaria parasites, and filarial nematodes. A recent competency study suggested that Cx. quinquefasciatus may be a vector for Zika virus [62], but others have found contradictory results [63, 64].

Our results suggest that P. bivittatus, as a host for medically-important mosquito vectors, is likely to be exposed to arboviruses and other endemic pathogens and may influence pathogen transmission within its introduced range. While little is known about wildlife pathogens transmitted by mosquitoes, there are records of Cx. quinquefasciatus transmitting Hepatozoon blood parasites between boid snakes and lizards in Brazil [65]. In the Pantanal of South America, various mosquito species in the Culex subgenus Melanoconion, which includes Cx. erraticus, are the vectors of another reptile-specific Hepatozoon species, H. caimani [66]. Culex erraticus is also a vector of the lizard malaria parasite Plasmodium floridense [67]. Introduced mosquito species may affect vertebrate hosts and the transmission of local pathogens [68]. In southern Florida, >10 species of nonnative mosquitoes are present and their host-use patterns, in many cases, are not well characterized.

In Florida, P. bivittatus may indirectly influence the transmission dynamics of mosquito-vectored pathogens through predation of mammalian hosts. There is evidence that predation of mammals by P. bivittatus increases contact between the vectors and reservoir hosts of Everglades virus, a strain of the Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [69]. Everglades virus circulates in an enzootic transmission cycle between reservoir rodent hosts via the mosquito Culex cedecei [70]. Reservoir hosts, specifically the cricetid rodents Sigmodon hispidus and Peromyscus gossypinus, become infected with the virus, and effectively transmit it to the Cx. cedecei mosquitoes that feed from them. This virus is currently not considered a substantial public health threat, although human populations living near native habitats that support virus circulation show high levels of exposure [71]. In humans, Everglades virus infection causes febrile symptoms that occasionally progress to neurologic disease [72]. Although Cx. cedecei feeds largely on rodents, it also feeds on other mammals including raccoons, opossums, deer, and rabbits [52]. Populations of some mammal species have declined precipitously since the introduction of the Burmese python [22, 23], correlating with a shift in the host use of Cx. cedecei towards the reservoir hosts of Everglades virus, and potentially leading to an increase in the prevalence of Everglades virus [69]. Currently, there are limited data on abundance trends of the rodent reservoir hosts of Everglades virus. We speculate that python-mediated declines in or extirpations of mammal species could affect the transmission and prevalence of Everglades virus in southern Florida by increasing or decreasing contact between vector mosquitoes and reservoir hosts. For example, predation of rodents by pythons could reduce the abundance of reservoir hosts (leading to a decrease in virus prevalence); predation of mammalian mesopredators by pythons could release reservoir rodents from mesopredator predation pressure (leading to an increase in virus prevalence); or mammal declines could push mammalophilic mosquito species that may serve as bridge-vectors, toward the rodent reservoir hosts through the decreased availability of non-reservoir mammals (leading to an increase in virus prevalence). In addition to Everglades virus, many other poorly known arboviruses (e.g., Mahogany Hammock virus, Pahayokee virus, Shark River virus, Gumbo Limbo virus) occur in mosquito-native mammal transmission cycles in the Everglades [73–75], and their transmission dynamics may be influenced by python predation of mammalian hosts.

Field surveys for P. bivittatus in difficult-to-access habitats are challenging and resource-intensive. In the Everglades, P. bivittatus is elusive, cryptic and semi-aquatic, making it difficult to detect through direct observation or traditional methods. For these reasons, molecular approaches through environmental DNA analyses have been developed that are designed to detect the presence of small fragments of python DNA in water [37, 38]. Our results demonstrate that local mosquito communities use P. bivittatus as a host. Assuming these interactions are occurring in the Everglades, mosquito blood meals could be used as an alternate source of DNA for detecting the presence of P. bivittatus. Although blood fed mosquitoes cannot be obtained as easily as water samples, one advantage of screening mosquito blood meals for python DNA is that host DNA is more concentrated and less degraded, potentially providing the ability to attribute DNA sequences to individual snakes [76], which may enable estimations of population size. Further, such an approach to P. bivittatus detection would generate datasets that are simultaneously valuable to both biodiversity monitoring and to the epidemiology of mosquito-vectored pathogens in southern Florida.

The feasibility of P. bivittatus detection through mosquito blood meals depends on the extent to which mosquitoes and pythons interact in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem of southern Florida. The habitats, mosquito and vertebrate host communities, and climatic conditions of southern Florida differ from those in northern Florida, where this research was performed. Southern Florida supports a similar mosquito assemblage to northern Florida with many species in common, including Cx. erraticus, Cx. pilosus, and Cx. quinquefasciatus [26]. These mosquitoes are likely to co-occur with P. bivittatus in the hardwood hammocks and coniferous forests with substantial canopy cover that are preferred by pythons [77]. Mosquito populations may be substantially denser in southern Florida, which may be beneficial to P. bivittatus detection. Aedes taeniorhynchus, in particular, reaches high abundances at sites where P. bivittatus is common. This species was not collected in our sample from northern Florida, but may feed from P. bivittatus in the Everglades, as it is known to feed from reptiles elsewhere [78]. Unlike northern Florida, the climate of southern Florida is also conducive to year-round mosquito activity, which would be expected to benefit the use of mosquito blood meals as a source of environmental DNA for P. bivittatus detection. Additional work, particularly field study, is needed to examine mosquito-python interactions and implications in nature in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem.

Research examining the impacts of P. bivittatus on the ecology of southern Florida has focused primarily on trophic interactions between pythons and native vertebrates, particularly mammals. Beyond predation, little is known about ecological interactions between P. bivittatus and other elements of Florida’s ecosystems. In addition to the potential of using mosquitoes as a source of environmental DNA for monitoring python populations, understanding interactions between introduced P. bivittatus populations and Florida’s mosquito fauna is necessary to determine any potential role P. bivittatus may play in the transmission systems of locally-occurring parasites and pathogens. The integration of a novel, large-bodied vertebrate into Florida’s ecosystems may directly or indirectly affect the transmission dynamics of local mosquito-borne pathogens. Future research should work towards understanding these impacts, particularly on Everglades virus, as environmental change has been hypothesized to promote the epizootic emergence of other Venezuelan equine encephalitis strains [79].

Supporting information

S1 Table. Collection details and results of blood meal analysis for mosquitoes collected at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Gainesville, Alachua Co., Florida, USA.

Each collected mosquito was given a unique identifying number (ID). The taxonomic identification (Species), date of collection (Date), sex (Sex), and the estimated extent of digestion are indicated for each mosquito specimen. A small sample of unfed female and male mosquitoes were collected to serve as negative controls to monitor for contamination and co-amplification of non-host templates. For each specimen, amplification success (Amp) and host identity (Host) are indicated.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190633.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Kandy L. Keacher and the staff of the USDA National Wildlife Research Center for assistance with collecting mosquito specimens, Lois Wood of the University of Florida Veterinary Entomology Lab, and Leroy Nuñez of the Florida Museum of Natural History Herpetology Division.

References

1. Pysek P, Jarosik V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, et al. A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: The interaction of impact measures, invading species' traits and environment. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:1725–1737.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Cronk QCB, Fuller CL. Plant Invaders: The Threat to Natural Ecosystems. London: Chapman & Hall; 1995.
3. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL. Biotic homogenization: A few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999;14:450–453. pmid:10511724
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Benedict MQ, Levine RS, Hawley WA, Lounibos LP. Spread of the tiger: Global risk of invasion by the mosquito Aedes albopictus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007;7:76–85. pmid:17417960
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Pimental D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ. 2005;52:273–288.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Fonseca DM, Lapointe DA, Fleischer RC. Bottlenecks and multiple introductions: Population genetics of the vector of avian malaria in Hawaii. Mol Ecol. 2000;9:1803–1814. pmid:11091316
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Prenter J, MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Dunn AM. Roles of parasites in animal invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:385–390. pmid:16701290
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Kelly DW, Paterson RA, Townsend CR, Poulin R, Tompkins DM. Parasite spillback: A neglected concept in invasion ecology? Ecology. 2009;90:2047–2056. pmid:19739367
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 1997.
10. Hardin S. Managing non-native wildlife in Florida: State perspective, policy and practice. In: Witmer G, Pitt W, Fagerstone K, editors. Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species. Fort Collins: USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center; 2007. p 43–52.
11. Krysko KL, Burgess JP, Rochford MR, Gillette CR, Cueva D, Enge KM, et al. Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: Outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa. 2011;3028:1–64.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Krysko KL, Somma LA, Smith DC, Gillette CR, Cueva D, Wasilewski JA. New verified nonindigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida through 2015, with a summary of over 152 years of introductions. Reptiles Amphib. 2016;23:110–143.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Engeman R, Jacobson E, Avery ML, Meshaka ME. The aggressive invasion of exotic reptiles in Florida with a focus on prominent species: A review. Curr Zool. 2011;57:599–612.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Meshaka WE, Loftus WF, Steiner T. The herpetofauna of Everglades National Park. Fla Sci. 2000;63:84–103.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Snow RW, Krysko KL, Enge KM, Oberhofer L, Warren-Bradley A, Wilkins L. Introduced populations of Boa constrictor (Boidae) and Python molurus bivittatus (Pythonidae) in southern Florida. In: Henderson RW, Powell R, editors. The Biology of Boas and Pythons. Eagle Mountain: Eagle Mountain Publishing; 2007. p. 417–438.
16. Willson JD, Dorcas ME, Snow RW. Identifying plausible scenarios for the establishment of invasive Burmese pythons (Python molurus) in Southern Florida. Biol Invasions. 2011;13:1493–1504.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Greene DU, Potts JM, Duquesnel JG, Snow RW. Python molurus bivittatus (Burmese python). Herpetol Rev. 2007;38:355.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Snow RW, Brien ML, Cherkiss MS, Wilkins L, Mazzotti FJ. Dietary habits of the Burmese python, Python molurus bivittatus, in Everglades National Park, Florida. Herpetol Bull. 2007;101:5–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Dove C, Snow RW, Rochford MR, Mazzotti FJ. Birds preyed upon by the introduced Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) in Everglades National Park, FL. Wilson J Ornithol. 2011;123:126–131.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Boback SM, Snow RM, Hsu T, Peurach SC, Dove CJ, Reed RN. Supersize me: Remains of three white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in an invasive Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) in Florida. Bioinvasions Rec. 2016;5:197–203.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Holbrook J, Chesnes T. An effect of Burmese pythons (Python molorus bivittatus) on mammal populations in southern Florida. Fla Sci. 2011;74:17–24.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Dorcas ME, Willson JD, Reed RN, Snow RW, Rochford MR, Miller MA, et al. Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:2418–2422. pmid:22308381
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. McCleery RA, Sovie A, Reed RN, Cunningham MW, Hunter ME, Hart KM. Marsh rabbit mortalities tie pythons to the precipitous declines of mammals in the Everglades. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;282:2015.0120.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Willson JD. Indirect effects of invasive Burmese pythons on ecosystems in southern Florida. J Appl Ecol. 2017;
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Keesing F, Holt RD, Ostfeld RS. Effect of species diversity on disease risk. Ecol Lett. 2006;9:485–498. pmid:16623733
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Darsie RF, Morris CD. Keys to the Adult Females and Fourth Instar Larvae of the Mosquitoes of Florida (Diptera: Culicidae). Fort Myers: Florida Mosquito Control Association; 2000.
27. Cupp EW, Zhang D, Yue X, Cupp MS, Guyer C, Sprenger TR, et al. Identification of reptilian and amphibian blood meals from mosquitoes in an Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus focus in central Alabama. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;71:272–276. pmid:15381805
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Burkett-Cadena ND, Graham SP, Hassan HK, Guyer C, Eubanks MD, Katholi CR, et al. Blood feeding patterns of potential arbovirus vectors of the genus Culex targeting ectothermic hosts. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79:809–815. pmid:18981528
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Smith TG. The genus Hepatozoon (Apicomplexa: Adeleina). J Parasitol. 1996;82:565–585. pmid:8691364
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Telford SR, Wozniak EJ, Butler JF. Haemogregarine specificity in two communities of Florida snakes, with descriptions of six new species of Hepatozoon (Apicomplexa: Hepatozoidae) and a possible species of Haemogregarina (Apicomplexa: Haemogregarinidae). J Parsitol. 2001;87:890–905.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Perkins SL, Rothschild A. Walter E. Infections of the malaria parasite, Plasmodium floridense, in the invasive lizard, Anolis sagrei, in Florida. J Herpetol. 2007;41:750–754.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Gebhardt LP, Stanton JG, Hill DW, Collett GC. Natural overwintering hosts of the virus of western equine encephalitis. N Engl J Med. 1964;271:171–177.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Steinman A, Banet-Noach C, Simanov L, Grinfeld N, Aizenberg Z, Levi O, et al. Experimental infection of common garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) with West Nile virus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006;6:361–368. pmid:17187570
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. White G, Ottendorfer C, Graham S, Unnasch TR. Competency of reptiles and amphibians for Eastern equine encephalitis virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;85:421–425. pmid:21896798
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Bingham AM, Graham SP, Burkett-Cadena ND, White GS, Hassan HK, Unnasch TR. Detection of Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus RNA in North American snakes. J Am Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87:1140–1144.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Blosser EM, Stenn T, Acevedo C, Burkett-Cadena ND. Host use and seasonality of Culex (Melanoconion) iolambdis (Diptera: Culicidae) from eastern Florida, USA. Acta Trop. 2016;164:352–359. pmid:27712940
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Piaggio AJ, Engeman R, Hopken MW, Humphrey JS, Keacher KL, Bruce WE et al. Detecting an elusive invasive species: A diagnostic PCR to detect Burmese python in Florida waters and an assessment of persistence of environmental DNA. Mol Ecol Resour. 2014;14:374–380. pmid:24119154
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Hunter ME, Oyler-McCance SJ, Dorazio RM, Fike JA, Smith BJ, Hunter CT, et al. Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling improves occurrence and detection estimates of invasive Burmese pythons. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0121655. pmid:25874630
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Burkett-Cadena ND. A wire-frame shelter for collecting resting mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2011;27:153–155. pmid:21805849
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Reeves LE, Holderman CJ, Gillett-Kaufman JL, Kawahara AY, Kaufman PE. Maintenance of host DNA integrity in field-preserved mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) blood meals for identification by DNA barcoding. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:503. pmid:27629021
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Detinova TS. Age-grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance: With special reference to some vectors of malaria. Bull World Health Organ. 1962;47:48–68.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Truett GE, Heeger P, Mynatt RL, Truett AA, Walker JA, Warman ML. Preparation of PCR quality mouse genomic DNA with sodium hydroxide and Tris (HotSHOT). Biotechniques. 2000;29:52–54. pmid:10907076
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Nagy ZT, Sonet G, Glaw F, Vences M. First large-scale DNA barcoding assessment of reptiles in the biodiversity hotspot of Madagascar, based on newly designed COI primers. PLOS One. 2012;7:e34506. pmid:22479636
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, et al. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:1647–1649. pmid:22543367
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, DeWaard JR. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;270:313–321.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2012. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0.
47. Templis CH. Host-feeding patterns of mosquitoes, with a review of advances in analysis of blood meals by serology. J Med Entomol. 1975;11:635–653. pmid:235647
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Dobson A, Cattadori I, Holt RD, Ostfeld RS, Keesing F, Krichbaum K, et al. Sacred cows and sympathetic squirrels: The importance of biological diversity to human health. PLOS Med. 2006;3:e231. pmid:16729846
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Edman JD. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes: III. Culex (Culex) and Culex (Neoculex). J Med Entomol. 1974;11:95–104. pmid:4828351
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Edman JD, Webber LA, Kale HW II. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes II. Culiseta. J Med Entomol. 1972;9:429–434. pmid:4404140
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Savage HM, Aggarwal D, Apperson CS, Katholi CR, Gordon E, Hassan HK, et al. Host choice and West Nile virus infection rates in blood-fed mosquitoes, including members of the Culex pipiens complex, from Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, 2002–2003. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007;7:365–386. pmid:17767413
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Edman JD. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes VI. Culex (Melanoconion). J Med Entomol. 1979;15:521–525. pmid:544824
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Rodrigues SCG, Maruniak JE. Blood meal identification from mosquitoes collected at a commercial alligator farm. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006;22:557–560. pmid:17067063
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Savage HM, Anderson M, Gordon E, McMillen L, Colton L, Delorey M, et al. Host-seeking heights, host-seeking activity patterns, and West Nile virus infection rates for members of the Culex pipiens complex at different habitat types within the hybrid zone, Shelby County, TN, 2002 (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2007;45:276–288.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Mendenhall IH, Tello SA, Neira LA, Castillo LF, Ocampo CB, Wesson DM. Host preference of the arbovirus vector Culex erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae) at Sonso Lake, Cauca Valley Department, Colombia. J Med Entomol. 2012;49:1092–1102. pmid:23025191
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Bingham AM, Burkett-Cadena ND, Hassan HK, McClure CJW, Unnasch TR. Field investigations of winter transmission of Eastern equine encephalitis virus in Florida. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:685–693. pmid:25070997
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Molaei G, Andreadis TG, Armstrong PM, Bueno R, Dennett JA, Real SV, et al. Host feeding pattern of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) and its role in transmission of West Nile virus in Harris County, Texas. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77:73–81. pmid:17620633
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Unlu I, Kramer WL, Roy AF, Foil LD. Detection of West Nile virus RNA in mosquitoes and identification of mosquito blood meals collected at alligator farms in Louisiana. J Med Entomol. 2010;47:625–633. pmid:20695278
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Bingham AM, Burkett-Cadena ND, Hassan HK, Unnasch TR. Vector competence and capacity of Culex erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae) for Eastern equine encephalitis virus in the southeastern United States. J Med Entomol. 2016;53:473–476. pmid:26659606
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Graham SP, Hassan HK, Chapman T, White G, Guyer C, Unnasch TR. Serosurveillance of Eastern equine encephalitis virus in amphibians and reptiles from Alabama, USA. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86:540–544. pmid:22403333
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Dahlin CR, Hughes DF, Meshaka WE Jr., Coleman C, Henning JD. Wild snakes harbor West Nile virus. One Health. 2016;2:136–138. pmid:28616487
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Guedes DRD, Paiva MHS, Donato MMA, Barbosa PP, Krokovsky L, Rocha SWS, et al. Zika virus replication in the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus in Brazil. bioRxivorg. 2016;073197.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ferreira-de-Brito A, de Miranda RM, da Silva KAB, de Castro MG, et al. Culex quinquefasciatus from Rio de Janeiro is not competent to transmit the local Zika virus. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004993. pmid:27598421
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Dodson BL, Rasgon JL. Vector competence of Anopheles and Culex mosquitoes for Zika virus. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3096. pmid:28316896
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. Paperna I, Lainson R. Hepatozoon c.f. terzii (Sambon & Seligman, 1907) infection in the snake Boa constrictor from north Brazil: Transmission to the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus and the lizard Tropidurus torquatu. Parasite. 2004;11:175–181. pmid:15224579
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. Viana LA, Soares P, Paiva F, Lourenço-De-Oliveira R. Caiman-biting mosquitoes and the natural vectors of Hepatozoon caimani in Brazil. J Med Entomol. 2010;47:670–676. pmid:20695284
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
67. Klein TA, Young DG, Telford SR. Vector incrimination and experimental transmission of Plasmodium floridense by bite of infected Culex (Melanoconion) erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1987;3:165–175. pmid:3504906
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
68. Juliano SA, Lounibos LP. Ecology of invasive mosquitoes: Effects on resident species and on human health. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:558–574. pmid:17637849
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
69. Hoyer IJ, Blosser EM, Acevedo C, Thompson AC, Reeves LE, Burkett-Cadena ND. Mammal decline, linked to invasive Burmese python, shifts host use of vector mosquito towards reservoir hosts of a zoonotic disease. Biol Lett. 2017;20170353.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
70. Coffey LL, Carrera A-S, Paessler S, Haynie ML, Bradley RD, Tesh RB, et al. Experimental Everglades virus infection of cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus). Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:2182–2188. pmid:15663857
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
71. Work TH. Serological evidence of arbovirus infection in the Seminole Indians of southern Florida. Science. 1964;145:270–272. pmid:14171866
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
72. Coffey LL, Crawford C, Dee J, Miller R, Freier J, Weaver SC. Serologic evidence of widespread Everglades virus activity in dogs, Florida. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:1873–1879. pmid:17326938
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
73. Coleman PH, Ryder S, Work TH. Mahogany Hammock virus, a new Guama group arbovirus from the Florida Everglades. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89:217–221. pmid:5765959
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
74. Fields BN, Henderson BE, Coleman PH, Work TH. Pahayokee and Shark River, two new arboviruses related to Patois and Zegla from the Florida Everglades. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89:222–226. pmid:5765960
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
75. Henderson BE, Calisher CH, Coleman PH, Fields BN, Work TH. Gumbo Limbo, A new group C arbovirus from the Florida Everglades. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89:227–231. pmid:4387912
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
76. Martinez-de la Puente J, Mendez M, Ruiz S, Godoy JA, Soriguer RC, Figuerola J. Individual identification of endangered species using mosquito blood meals: A proof-of-concept study in Iberian lynx. Parasitol Res. 2015;114:1607–1610. pmid:25656463
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
77. Walters TM, Mazzotti FJ, Fitz HC. Habitat selection by the invasive species Burmese python in southern Florida. J Herpetol. 2016;50:50–56.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
78. Bataille A, Fournié G, Cruz M, Cedeño V, Parker PG, Cunningham AA, Goodman SJ. Host selection and parasite infection in Aedes taeniorhynchus, endemic disease vector in the Galapagos Islands. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:1831–1841. pmid:22921730
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
79. Brault AC, Powers AM, Ortiz D, Estrada-Franco JG, Navarro-Lopez R, Weaver SC. Venezuelan equine encephalitis emergence: Enhanced vector infection from a single amino acid substitution in the envelope glycoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:11344–11349. pmid:15277679
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Pysek P, Jarosik V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, et al. A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: The interaction of impact measures, invading species' traits and environment. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:1725–1737.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Cronk QCB, Fuller CL. Plant Invaders: The Threat to Natural Ecosystems. London: Chapman & Hall; 1995.

[ref3] 3. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL. Biotic homogenization: A few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999;14:450–453. pmid:10511724
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Benedict MQ, Levine RS, Hawley WA, Lounibos LP. Spread of the tiger: Global risk of invasion by the mosquito Aedes albopictus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007;7:76–85. pmid:17417960
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Pimental D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ. 2005;52:273–288.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Fonseca DM, Lapointe DA, Fleischer RC. Bottlenecks and multiple introductions: Population genetics of the vector of avian malaria in Hawaii. Mol Ecol. 2000;9:1803–1814. pmid:11091316
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Prenter J, MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Dunn AM. Roles of parasites in animal invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:385–390. pmid:16701290
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Kelly DW, Paterson RA, Townsend CR, Poulin R, Tompkins DM. Parasite spillback: A neglected concept in invasion ecology? Ecology. 2009;90:2047–2056. pmid:19739367
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] PubMed/NCBI

[27] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 1997.

[ref10] 10. Hardin S. Managing non-native wildlife in Florida: State perspective, policy and practice. In: Witmer G, Pitt W, Fagerstone K, editors. Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species. Fort Collins: USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center; 2007. p 43–52.

[ref11] 11. Krysko KL, Burgess JP, Rochford MR, Gillette CR, Cueva D, Enge KM, et al. Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: Outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa. 2011;3028:1–64.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Krysko KL, Somma LA, Smith DC, Gillette CR, Cueva D, Wasilewski JA. New verified nonindigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida through 2015, with a summary of over 152 years of introductions. Reptiles Amphib. 2016;23:110–143.
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Engeman R, Jacobson E, Avery ML, Meshaka ME. The aggressive invasion of exotic reptiles in Florida with a focus on prominent species: A review. Curr Zool. 2011;57:599–612.
View Article
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Meshaka WE, Loftus WF, Steiner T. The herpetofauna of Everglades National Park. Fla Sci. 2000;63:84–103.
View Article
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Snow RW, Krysko KL, Enge KM, Oberhofer L, Warren-Bradley A, Wilkins L. Introduced populations of Boa constrictor (Boidae) and Python molurus bivittatus (Pythonidae) in southern Florida. In: Henderson RW, Powell R, editors. The Biology of Boas and Pythons. Eagle Mountain: Eagle Mountain Publishing; 2007. p. 417–438.

[ref16] 16. Willson JD, Dorcas ME, Snow RW. Identifying plausible scenarios for the establishment of invasive Burmese pythons (Python molurus) in Southern Florida. Biol Invasions. 2011;13:1493–1504.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Greene DU, Potts JM, Duquesnel JG, Snow RW. Python molurus bivittatus (Burmese python). Herpetol Rev. 2007;38:355.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Snow RW, Brien ML, Cherkiss MS, Wilkins L, Mazzotti FJ. Dietary habits of the Burmese python, Python molurus bivittatus, in Everglades National Park, Florida. Herpetol Bull. 2007;101:5–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Dove C, Snow RW, Rochford MR, Mazzotti FJ. Birds preyed upon by the introduced Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) in Everglades National Park, FL. Wilson J Ornithol. 2011;123:126–131.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Boback SM, Snow RM, Hsu T, Peurach SC, Dove CJ, Reed RN. Supersize me: Remains of three white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in an invasive Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) in Florida. Bioinvasions Rec. 2016;5:197–203.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Holbrook J, Chesnes T. An effect of Burmese pythons (Python molorus bivittatus) on mammal populations in southern Florida. Fla Sci. 2011;74:17–24.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Dorcas ME, Willson JD, Reed RN, Snow RW, Rochford MR, Miller MA, et al. Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:2418–2422. pmid:22308381
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. McCleery RA, Sovie A, Reed RN, Cunningham MW, Hunter ME, Hart KM. Marsh rabbit mortalities tie pythons to the precipitous declines of mammals in the Everglades. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;282:2015.0120.
View Article
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Willson JD. Indirect effects of invasive Burmese pythons on ecosystems in southern Florida. J Appl Ecol. 2017;
View Article
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Keesing F, Holt RD, Ostfeld RS. Effect of species diversity on disease risk. Ecol Lett. 2006;9:485–498. pmid:16623733
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Darsie RF, Morris CD. Keys to the Adult Females and Fourth Instar Larvae of the Mosquitoes of Florida (Diptera: Culicidae). Fort Myers: Florida Mosquito Control Association; 2000.

[ref27] 27. Cupp EW, Zhang D, Yue X, Cupp MS, Guyer C, Sprenger TR, et al. Identification of reptilian and amphibian blood meals from mosquitoes in an Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus focus in central Alabama. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;71:272–276. pmid:15381805
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Burkett-Cadena ND, Graham SP, Hassan HK, Guyer C, Eubanks MD, Katholi CR, et al. Blood feeding patterns of potential arbovirus vectors of the genus Culex targeting ectothermic hosts. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79:809–815. pmid:18981528
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Smith TG. The genus Hepatozoon (Apicomplexa: Adeleina). J Parasitol. 1996;82:565–585. pmid:8691364
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Telford SR, Wozniak EJ, Butler JF. Haemogregarine specificity in two communities of Florida snakes, with descriptions of six new species of Hepatozoon (Apicomplexa: Hepatozoidae) and a possible species of Haemogregarina (Apicomplexa: Haemogregarinidae). J Parsitol. 2001;87:890–905.
View Article
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Perkins SL, Rothschild A. Walter E. Infections of the malaria parasite, Plasmodium floridense, in the invasive lizard, Anolis sagrei, in Florida. J Herpetol. 2007;41:750–754.
View Article
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Gebhardt LP, Stanton JG, Hill DW, Collett GC. Natural overwintering hosts of the virus of western equine encephalitis. N Engl J Med. 1964;271:171–177.
View Article
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Steinman A, Banet-Noach C, Simanov L, Grinfeld N, Aizenberg Z, Levi O, et al. Experimental infection of common garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) with West Nile virus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006;6:361–368. pmid:17187570
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. White G, Ottendorfer C, Graham S, Unnasch TR. Competency of reptiles and amphibians for Eastern equine encephalitis virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;85:421–425. pmid:21896798
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Bingham AM, Graham SP, Burkett-Cadena ND, White GS, Hassan HK, Unnasch TR. Detection of Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus RNA in North American snakes. J Am Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87:1140–1144.
View Article
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Blosser EM, Stenn T, Acevedo C, Burkett-Cadena ND. Host use and seasonality of Culex (Melanoconion) iolambdis (Diptera: Culicidae) from eastern Florida, USA. Acta Trop. 2016;164:352–359. pmid:27712940
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Piaggio AJ, Engeman R, Hopken MW, Humphrey JS, Keacher KL, Bruce WE et al. Detecting an elusive invasive species: A diagnostic PCR to detect Burmese python in Florida waters and an assessment of persistence of environmental DNA. Mol Ecol Resour. 2014;14:374–380. pmid:24119154
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Hunter ME, Oyler-McCance SJ, Dorazio RM, Fike JA, Smith BJ, Hunter CT, et al. Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling improves occurrence and detection estimates of invasive Burmese pythons. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0121655. pmid:25874630
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Burkett-Cadena ND. A wire-frame shelter for collecting resting mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2011;27:153–155. pmid:21805849
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Reeves LE, Holderman CJ, Gillett-Kaufman JL, Kawahara AY, Kaufman PE. Maintenance of host DNA integrity in field-preserved mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) blood meals for identification by DNA barcoding. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:503. pmid:27629021
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Detinova TS. Age-grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance: With special reference to some vectors of malaria. Bull World Health Organ. 1962;47:48–68.
View Article
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Truett GE, Heeger P, Mynatt RL, Truett AA, Walker JA, Warman ML. Preparation of PCR quality mouse genomic DNA with sodium hydroxide and Tris (HotSHOT). Biotechniques. 2000;29:52–54. pmid:10907076
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Nagy ZT, Sonet G, Glaw F, Vences M. First large-scale DNA barcoding assessment of reptiles in the biodiversity hotspot of Madagascar, based on newly designed COI primers. PLOS One. 2012;7:e34506. pmid:22479636
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] PubMed/NCBI

[138] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, et al. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:1647–1649. pmid:22543367
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] PubMed/NCBI

[142] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, DeWaard JR. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;270:313–321.
View Article
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2012. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0.

[ref47] 47. Templis CH. Host-feeding patterns of mosquitoes, with a review of advances in analysis of blood meals by serology. J Med Entomol. 1975;11:635–653. pmid:235647
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Dobson A, Cattadori I, Holt RD, Ostfeld RS, Keesing F, Krichbaum K, et al. Sacred cows and sympathetic squirrels: The importance of biological diversity to human health. PLOS Med. 2006;3:e231. pmid:16729846
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] PubMed/NCBI

[154] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Edman JD. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes: III. Culex (Culex) and Culex (Neoculex). J Med Entomol. 1974;11:95–104. pmid:4828351
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] PubMed/NCBI

[158] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Edman JD, Webber LA, Kale HW II. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes II. Culiseta. J Med Entomol. 1972;9:429–434. pmid:4404140
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] PubMed/NCBI

[162] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Savage HM, Aggarwal D, Apperson CS, Katholi CR, Gordon E, Hassan HK, et al. Host choice and West Nile virus infection rates in blood-fed mosquitoes, including members of the Culex pipiens complex, from Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, 2002–2003. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007;7:365–386. pmid:17767413
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] PubMed/NCBI

[166] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Edman JD. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes VI. Culex (Melanoconion). J Med Entomol. 1979;15:521–525. pmid:544824
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Rodrigues SCG, Maruniak JE. Blood meal identification from mosquitoes collected at a commercial alligator farm. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006;22:557–560. pmid:17067063
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Savage HM, Anderson M, Gordon E, McMillen L, Colton L, Delorey M, et al. Host-seeking heights, host-seeking activity patterns, and West Nile virus infection rates for members of the Culex pipiens complex at different habitat types within the hybrid zone, Shelby County, TN, 2002 (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2007;45:276–288.
View Article
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Mendenhall IH, Tello SA, Neira LA, Castillo LF, Ocampo CB, Wesson DM. Host preference of the arbovirus vector Culex erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae) at Sonso Lake, Cauca Valley Department, Colombia. J Med Entomol. 2012;49:1092–1102. pmid:23025191
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] PubMed/NCBI

[181] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Bingham AM, Burkett-Cadena ND, Hassan HK, McClure CJW, Unnasch TR. Field investigations of winter transmission of Eastern equine encephalitis virus in Florida. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:685–693. pmid:25070997
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[183] View Article

[184] PubMed/NCBI

[185] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Molaei G, Andreadis TG, Armstrong PM, Bueno R, Dennett JA, Real SV, et al. Host feeding pattern of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) and its role in transmission of West Nile virus in Harris County, Texas. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77:73–81. pmid:17620633
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] PubMed/NCBI

[189] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Unlu I, Kramer WL, Roy AF, Foil LD. Detection of West Nile virus RNA in mosquitoes and identification of mosquito blood meals collected at alligator farms in Louisiana. J Med Entomol. 2010;47:625–633. pmid:20695278
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] PubMed/NCBI

[193] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Bingham AM, Burkett-Cadena ND, Hassan HK, Unnasch TR. Vector competence and capacity of Culex erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae) for Eastern equine encephalitis virus in the southeastern United States. J Med Entomol. 2016;53:473–476. pmid:26659606
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] PubMed/NCBI

[197] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Graham SP, Hassan HK, Chapman T, White G, Guyer C, Unnasch TR. Serosurveillance of Eastern equine encephalitis virus in amphibians and reptiles from Alabama, USA. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86:540–544. pmid:22403333
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[199] View Article

[200] PubMed/NCBI

[201] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Dahlin CR, Hughes DF, Meshaka WE Jr., Coleman C, Henning JD. Wild snakes harbor West Nile virus. One Health. 2016;2:136–138. pmid:28616487
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[203] View Article

[204] PubMed/NCBI

[205] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Guedes DRD, Paiva MHS, Donato MMA, Barbosa PP, Krokovsky L, Rocha SWS, et al. Zika virus replication in the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus in Brazil. bioRxivorg. 2016;073197.
View Article
Google Scholar

[207] View Article

[208] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ferreira-de-Brito A, de Miranda RM, da Silva KAB, de Castro MG, et al. Culex quinquefasciatus from Rio de Janeiro is not competent to transmit the local Zika virus. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004993. pmid:27598421
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[210] View Article

[211] PubMed/NCBI

[212] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Dodson BL, Rasgon JL. Vector competence of Anopheles and Culex mosquitoes for Zika virus. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3096. pmid:28316896
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[214] View Article

[215] PubMed/NCBI

[216] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Paperna I, Lainson R. Hepatozoon c.f. terzii (Sambon & Seligman, 1907) infection in the snake Boa constrictor from north Brazil: Transmission to the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus and the lizard Tropidurus torquatu. Parasite. 2004;11:175–181. pmid:15224579
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[218] View Article

[219] PubMed/NCBI

[220] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Viana LA, Soares P, Paiva F, Lourenço-De-Oliveira R. Caiman-biting mosquitoes and the natural vectors of Hepatozoon caimani in Brazil. J Med Entomol. 2010;47:670–676. pmid:20695284
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[222] View Article

[223] PubMed/NCBI

[224] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Klein TA, Young DG, Telford SR. Vector incrimination and experimental transmission of Plasmodium floridense by bite of infected Culex (Melanoconion) erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1987;3:165–175. pmid:3504906
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[226] View Article

[227] PubMed/NCBI

[228] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Juliano SA, Lounibos LP. Ecology of invasive mosquitoes: Effects on resident species and on human health. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:558–574. pmid:17637849
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[230] View Article

[231] PubMed/NCBI

[232] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Hoyer IJ, Blosser EM, Acevedo C, Thompson AC, Reeves LE, Burkett-Cadena ND. Mammal decline, linked to invasive Burmese python, shifts host use of vector mosquito towards reservoir hosts of a zoonotic disease. Biol Lett. 2017;20170353.
View Article
Google Scholar

[234] View Article

[235] Google Scholar

[ref70] 70. Coffey LL, Carrera A-S, Paessler S, Haynie ML, Bradley RD, Tesh RB, et al. Experimental Everglades virus infection of cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus). Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:2182–2188. pmid:15663857
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[237] View Article

[238] PubMed/NCBI

[239] Google Scholar

[ref71] 71. Work TH. Serological evidence of arbovirus infection in the Seminole Indians of southern Florida. Science. 1964;145:270–272. pmid:14171866
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[241] View Article

[242] PubMed/NCBI

[243] Google Scholar

[ref72] 72. Coffey LL, Crawford C, Dee J, Miller R, Freier J, Weaver SC. Serologic evidence of widespread Everglades virus activity in dogs, Florida. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:1873–1879. pmid:17326938
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[245] View Article

[246] PubMed/NCBI

[247] Google Scholar

[ref73] 73. Coleman PH, Ryder S, Work TH. Mahogany Hammock virus, a new Guama group arbovirus from the Florida Everglades. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89:217–221. pmid:5765959
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[249] View Article

[250] PubMed/NCBI

[251] Google Scholar

[ref74] 74. Fields BN, Henderson BE, Coleman PH, Work TH. Pahayokee and Shark River, two new arboviruses related to Patois and Zegla from the Florida Everglades. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89:222–226. pmid:5765960
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[253] View Article

[254] PubMed/NCBI

[255] Google Scholar

[ref75] 75. Henderson BE, Calisher CH, Coleman PH, Fields BN, Work TH. Gumbo Limbo, A new group C arbovirus from the Florida Everglades. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89:227–231. pmid:4387912
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[257] View Article

[258] PubMed/NCBI

[259] Google Scholar

[ref76] 76. Martinez-de la Puente J, Mendez M, Ruiz S, Godoy JA, Soriguer RC, Figuerola J. Individual identification of endangered species using mosquito blood meals: A proof-of-concept study in Iberian lynx. Parasitol Res. 2015;114:1607–1610. pmid:25656463
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[261] View Article

[262] PubMed/NCBI

[263] Google Scholar

[ref77] 77. Walters TM, Mazzotti FJ, Fitz HC. Habitat selection by the invasive species Burmese python in southern Florida. J Herpetol. 2016;50:50–56.
View Article
Google Scholar

[265] View Article

[266] Google Scholar

[ref78] 78. Bataille A, Fournié G, Cruz M, Cedeño V, Parker PG, Cunningham AA, Goodman SJ. Host selection and parasite infection in Aedes taeniorhynchus, endemic disease vector in the Galapagos Islands. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:1831–1841. pmid:22921730
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[268] View Article

[269] PubMed/NCBI

[270] Google Scholar

[ref79] 79. Brault AC, Powers AM, Ortiz D, Estrada-Franco JG, Navarro-Lopez R, Weaver SC. Venezuelan equine encephalitis emergence: Enhanced vector infection from a single amino acid substitution in the envelope glycoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:11344–11349. pmid:15277679
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[272] View Article

[273] PubMed/NCBI

[274] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Mosquito sampling

Blood meal analysis

Results

Discussion

Supporting information

S1 Table. Collection details and results of blood meal analysis for mosquitoes collected at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Gainesville, Alachua Co., Florida, USA.

Acknowledgments

References