The Triatominae are haematophagous insects of the order Hemiptera and comprise 152 species subdivided into 16 genera, including two fossils (Poinar, 2013; Mendonça et al., 2016; da Rosa et al., 2017; Monteiro et al., 2018). Triatomines are mainly distributed in Central and South America inhabiting environments ranging from tropical to temperate regions with cold winters (de la Vega and Schilman, 2018). Eleven species have also been recorded in the southern United States (Curtis-Robles et al., 2018). In the Old World, species belonging to the genus Linshcosteus occur in India, whereas eight species of the genus Triatoma, especially the cosmopolitan T. rubrofasciata occur in Africa, the Middle-East, Southeast Asia, and in the Western Pacific (Gorla et al., 1997; Monteiro et al., 2018).

Through their haematophagous lifestyle, triatomines function as vectors for pathogens such as Trypanosoma conorhini, T. rangeli and T. cruzi, the aetiological agent of Chagas disease (American trypanosomiasis) (Deane and Deane, 1961; Ferreira et al., 2015; Vieira et al., 2018). The flagellated protozoan parasite T. cruzi is transmitted by infectious faeces of the triatomines, which are rubbed into the bite wound. Further transmission routes include oral infection by the consumption of contaminated food or raw meat of infected mammalian hosts, congenital infection and transmission through blood transfusion or organ transplantation. Acute symptoms include fever, fatigue, headache, and myalgia, with long-term effects such as acute and chronic chagasic heart disease and gastrointestinal manifestations being more severe (Nóbrega et al., 2009; Coura and Viñas, 2010; Carlier et al., 2011; Rosas et al., 2012). Lee et al., 2013 calculated a global economic loss of $7.19 billion per year attributable to Chagas disease due to high health-care costs and lost productivity from early mortality. It is estimated that 6 to 7 million people worldwide are infected with Chagas disease, most of them living in Latin America. Caused by global immigration and travel, Chagas disease has been increasingly detected in the United States, Canada, European and some Western Pacific countries (WHO, 2019). However, due to the lack of vectors, there has been no vector-borne transmission outside of the Americas. This could change if the spread of the disease is followed by a propagation of the vectors. Although the mobility of triatomine bugs is generally limited, they can be passively transported by the shipment of infested goods and animals or luggage and along air transportation routes (Fleming-Moran, 1992; Coura and Viñas, 2010; Pinto Dias, 2013).

Among triatomine species, Triatoma rubrofasciata is most widely distributed and recorded from the United States of America, Central and South America, coastal regions of Africa and the Middle-East, the Atlantic Ocean (Azores) and port areas of the Indo-Pacific region (Dujardin et al., 2015a). It is the only member of the Triatoma genus occurring in the New and Old World, with frequent records in previously non-endemic areas (Liu et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018). The evolutionary origin of T. rubrofasciata is unclear, although a New World origin seems more likely (Dujardin et al., 2015b). It is believed that through its close association with domestic rats (especially Rattus rattus), T. rubrofasciata was spread along the shipping routes of the 16th to 19th century (Schofield, 1988; Gorla et al., 1997; Patterson et al., 2001). T. rubrofasciata is able to transmit Trypanosoma cruzi in Latin America; however, there are no records of vector transmission in the Old World (Dujardin et al., 2015b).

In the past, Chagas disease vectors have frequently experienced range expansions (Pinto Dias, 2013). For instance, Rhodnius prolixus, one of the most important vectors of Chagas disease, was carried from Venezuela to Mexico and Central America by sea commerce and possibly by bird migration (Hashimoto and Schofield, 2012). In the light of ongoing globalization, changing climate and a concomitant shift of trade and travel routes, the probability of further migration of triatomine bugs and especially Triatoma rubrofasciata increases. This entails the risk of vector-associated transmission of Chagas disease (Schofield et al., 2009). Therefore, constant monitoring of the vectors, but also the determination of potentially suitable habitats for these vectors, appears to be of great importance. The potential spread of various triatomine species under current and future climatic conditions in South, Central and North America has been extensively studied, but there is a lack of knowledge about climatic suitability outside the Americas (Gurgel-Gonçalves et al., 2012; Garza et al., 2014; Parra-Henao et al., 2016). The aim of this study was to investigate the climatic suitability under current climatic conditions for eleven triatomine species on a global scale using ecological niche modelling (ENM). We concentrated on domestic and peri-domestic triatomine species representing different biogeographical regions and deemed to be the main vectors of Chagas disease. An ensemble forecasting approach was applied (Araújo and New, 2007), which is considered to yield robust estimations of the habitat suitability. In this way, we are able to identify areas at risk, pinpoint triatomine species which find suitable habitats outside their current range and therefore might possess a high potential for expansion.

With a few exceptions, Triatominae are currently widespread in Central and South America where they transmit the causative agent of Chagas disease, Trypanosoma cruzi. However, it is not yet known whether areas outside the Americas provide suitable habitats for triatomine species. This study analyses the potential geographical distribution of 11 triatomine species under current climatic conditions on a global scale. For this purpose, we used ENM to identify regions that offer climatically suitable conditions for the examined species.

Despite climatic requirements, the triatomine species have different microhabitat preferences and host spectra and therefore, possess a dissimilar vector potential. For instance, R. brethesi is closely associated with palm trees and features prominently in the sylvatic transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi feeding particularly on opossums (Didelphis spp.). Domestic or peri-domestic behaviour is not observed, thus, R. brethesis’ domestic vector potential is most likely low (Coura et al., 2002; Rocha et al., 2004). Rhodnius ecuadoriensis is distributed in southern Ecuador and northern Peru, where it exhibits domestic and peri-domestic behaviour invading chicken coops and human dwellings. It establishes dense populations and is commonly infected with T. cruzi indicating a high vector potential. In the sylvatic environment, R. ecuadoriensis is mainly found in palm trees (Phytelephas aequatorialis) (Abad-Franch et al., 2005). The T. cruzi infection rate of Triatoma maculata depends on the geographical area. In most regions T. maculata has ornithophilic feeding preferences, whereas studies in the Colombian Caribbean region reported active transmission in peri-domestic human dwellings involving dogs as reservoir hosts (Cantillo-Barraza et al., 2014; Cantillo-Barraza et al., 2015). For these three species, only a few regions outside the Americas with distinct tropical climate have been projected as climatically suitable including the Congo Basin in Central Africa and a few parts of Southeast Asia. Here, T. maculata comparatively shows the largest distribution comprising potentially suitable areas within tropical rainforest and savannah climates (Figure 1C).

Triatoma brasiliensis is located in tropical savannah regions with a hot and dry climate altering with intensive rain. There, it is found under rock piles feeding on a broad range of reptile and mammalian hosts, including humans. Due to its high Trypanosoma cruzi infection and intradomiciliary infestation rates, Triatoma brasiliensis is considered as an important vector for Chagas disease (Carcavallo et al., 1997). The climatic niche of Panstrongylus geniculatus was projected to be very broad (Figure 1E). A result that is reinforced by the literature in which the species is described as eurythermic and adapted to several dry as well as humid ecotopes (Patterson et al., 2009). It feeds on the blood of various hosts, such as marsupials, opossums, anteaters, armadillos, bats, cats, birds and chicken, in whose nests and coops it can be found. Additionally, it invades human houses and possesses a high susceptibility to Trypanosoma cruzi (Feliciangeli et al., 2004). Similar climatic distribution patterns are shown by the anthropophilic species R. prolixus, which permanently colonises human dwellings (Rabinovich et al., 2011). P. megistus occurs primarily in the Atlantic rain forests of South America and requires high relative humidity for breeding. With exception of the triatomine species occurring in temperate climate regions, solely the modelled distribution of P. megistus is highly influenced by the bioclimatic variable describing the maximum temperature of the warmest month (BIO5). The reason could be that the species is strongly limited by arid climates (Forattini, 1980). Outside of South and Central America, the models of these six species show widespread potential distribution areas with suitable climate conditions in the Caribbean, Central and East Africa, Madagascar, South India and throughout Southeast Asia.

Triatoma infestans and T. sordida find climatically suitable habitats in subtropical, but also temperate regions as they exist in the southern cone of South America and northern Central America, respectively. They are also the only triatomine species for which habitats in southern Europe, eastern Australia and large parts of South Africa have been projected to be climatically suitable (Figure 1I–J). T. infestans is adapted to deal with cold temperatures and therefore, has a greater diversity of wild habitats, which is probably related to the behavioural plasticity of the species. It shows exceptional domestic behaviour and is classified as one of the most important Chagas disease vectors in South America (Brenière et al., 2017; Belliard et al., 2019). T. sordida also has a propensity for peri-domestic behaviour in the absence of primary domestic vector species, thus, it often occurs when T. infestans is eradicated from human dwellings (Diotaiuti et al., 1993; Galvão and Justi, 2015).

Previous niche modelling approaches focused mainly on the potential distribution in North, Central and South America neglecting the actual global distribution achieved by T. rubrofasciata and the risks emerging from other Triatominae. For example, Garza et al., 2014 predicted a potential northern shift in the distribution of T. gerstaeckeri and a northern and southern distributional shift of T. sanguisuga, both important vectors of T. cruzi in the United States, under future climate conditions. Similar studies have been conducted for regions in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Venezuela in Central and South America (Sandoval-Ruiz et al., 2008; Gurgel-Gonçalves et al., 2012; Hernández et al., 2013; Ceccarelli and Rabinovich, 2015; Parra-Henao et al., 2016).

In general, the projected climatic habitat suitability reflects the realised species distribution in South America exceptionally well (Supplementary file 4). In some areas, however, the models appear to slightly overestimate the potential distribution as it could be noted in the modelling of T. dimidiata. Although eastern and western South America were projected as climatically suitable, the observed distribution of T. dimidiata covers exclusively Central America and northern South America. Such discrepancies could be ascribed to factors not related to climate conditions, such as dispersal limitations and interspecific competition. Furthermore, highly effective vector control measurements such as indoor residual spraying and housing improvements significantly reduce the distribution of triatomine insects in areas that would otherwise be considered a suitable environment (Cucunubá et al., 2018). Sampling biases, such as insufficient or inhomogeneous sampling can result in species distribution modelling reflecting sampling effort rather than actual distribution. Nevertheless, the occurrence data used were taken from a published atlas of the Chagas disease vectors and, thus, represent a comprehensive and reliable source (Carcavallo et al., 1998; Fergnani et al., 2013). The applied ensemble forecast approach is considered to return more robust estimations compared to single algorithms and is therefore an eligible tool for ENM. Nevertheless, like all modelling approaches, ensemble forecasting is also subject to certain restrictions. This includes in particular the generation of pseudo-absences, since reliable absence data were not available. We have sought to minimize this problem by using a geographically filtered absence selection, where pseudo-absences are sampled in a defined spatial distance to occurrence points. The fact that explanatory variables are only available up to the year 2000 entails that the modelled distribution could shift slightly under present conditions. Thus, the distribution of thermophilic species might be underestimated due to a changing climate. Areas in which the projection is uncertain are additionally displayed. It is striking that this affects particularly dry and cold regions, such as the Atacama Desert, the Sahara, the Namib and Kalahari Desert, Antarctica, or parts of the Arabian Peninsula. The reason for this is probably the extreme maximum and minimum temperatures as well as the precipitation patterns in these areas, which deviate significantly from the values of the bioclimatic variables used for model training. The comparison between the global projected climatic suitability and the actual occurrences of T. rubrofasciata imply that the algorithms also project well outside the Americas. Almost all occurrence records are located in areas projected to be at least partially climatically suitable (Figure 2). Occurrence points located in areas with less projected suitability often occur in large trade centres, such as Singapore where individual triatomines could be introduced by shipping or air transport. This could be also true for smaller islands, such as the Japanese Okinawa islands. Whether established populations exist there is not affirmed. Each of the countries where T. rubrofasciata has been reported but no coordinates are available possess at least one area projected as climatically suitable for T. rubrofasciata. This applies especially to coastal regions of Angola, Cambodia, China, Comoros, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Martinique (France), Mauritius, Myanmar, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan (China), Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga and Vietnam. Nevertheless, the occurrence data for T. rubrofasciata is very scarce and probably incomplete due to a lack of monitoring. Therefore, occurrence points from 1958 to 2018 were used for validation including data collected outside the period in which the climatic variables were recorded. This could lead to a slight shift between the actually observed occurrence of T. rubrofasciata and the projected climatically suitable habitat. For example, it is possible that environments that were modelled as climatically unsuitable for the period 1970 to 2000 now have climatic conditions suitable for T. rubrofasciata.

The diversity map, which was compiled based on the binary modelling results, highlights regions possessing suitable climatic conditions for various triatomine species in tropical regions especially between 21°N and 24°S latitude. In South America, diversity hotspots are for the most part modelled for regions south of the equator. Indeed, a direct correlation exists between temperature and triatomine species richness leading to a significant increase of diversity from the poles towards the equator. This effect seems to be pronounced in the southern hemisphere of South America (Rodriguero and Gorla, 2004). According to Péneau et al., 2016 highly diverse vector communities as well as less diverse communities can lead to peaks of Chagas transmission, while intermediate levels of triatomine diversity lowers the risk of transmission. This correlation is mostly associated with a dominant, highly vector competent key species being more abundant in less diverse communities. An increase in biodiversity reduces the contribution of this key species to the Chagas disease transmission rate, while the contribution of secondary species increases. At intermediate levels of biodiversity, this does not compensate the reduced risk associated with the key species, whereas in highly diverse communities, the contribution of the secondary species to the transmission rate nearly matches the contribution of the key species. Outside their native range, highest triatomine species richness can also be found in tropical regions. In Africa, the regions of greatest triatomine diversity are projected north and south of the equator in a tropical savannah climate similar to the climate south of the equator in South America (Geiger, 1961). This climatic characteristic also applies to Southeast Asia, where diversity hotspots are less prominent. Furthermore, our findings indicate that there are suitable climatic habitats for triatomine species in temperate areas, such as Portugal, Spain and Italy in Europe or eastern Australia.

The results of the relative contribution of the bioclimatic variables correspond to findings of other studies, which also identify temperature seasonality (BIO4) as an important determinant of triatomine species distribution. This is probably attributable to physiological limiting factors, such as the temperature-dependent development and temperature-induced dispersal stimulation of the triatomines (Diniz-Filho et al., 2013; Pereira et al., 2013; Ceccarelli et al., 2015). Whether temperature or precipitation have a higher impact on triatomine distribution appears to be dependent on the considered species and further ecological factors (Gorla, 2002; Bustamante et al., 2007; de la Vega et al., 2015). For instance, although its lifecycle is not bound to water unlike many insects, a high relative humidity seems to be crucial for the development of T. vitticeps, a triatomine species occurring in the Atlantic forests of Brazil (de Souza et al., 2010). Our results indicate a low influence of the precipitation variables (BIO13-15) on the triatomine distribution. However, species interactions and other than the climatic influences on the Triatominae are not taken into account with this approach. For example, the niche of host species as well as microclimatic effects and habitat structures play an important role in the distribution of triatomine species.

Through our work, the global climatic suitability for many triatomine species has been demonstrated by ENM. Based on the results of this study, the ability to transmit Trypanosoma cruzi and the wide distribution achieved, Triatoma rubrofasciata currently seems to be the potentially most perilous source of autochthonous Chagas infections outside of the Americas. However, it has not yet been possible to provide evidence of such disease transmission (Rebêlo et al., 1998; Dujardin et al., 2015b). Due to their limited dispersal by flight and the fact that they do not have resting stages, transport of triatomine bugs seems to be very rare. Nonetheless, older instars of some triatomine species are able to survive several months without a blood meal and therefore, might survive longer transports (Costa and Perondini, 1973; Cortéz and Gonçalves, 1998; Almeida et al., 2003). Vulnerable dispersal routes could be shipping traffic fostering the distribution of coastal triatomine species as shown for T. rubrofasciata, but also trade and travel by air traffic. Our results, as well as the immigration of infected people, show that the potential transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi is not necessarily a sole Latin American problem (WHO, 2019). It has been estimated that there are >80,000 individuals infected with Chagas in Europe and the Western Pacific region, >300,000 in the United States, >3000 in Japan and >1500 in Australia (Coura and Viñas, 2010). A further spread of Triatoma rubrofasciata into regions with suitable climatic conditions, but also the possible introduction of other Chagas vectors in non-endemic areas, could aggravate the situation and increase the number of infections. In particular, regions offering suitable climatic conditions to a large number of different triatomine species are at risk. Therefore, it may be beneficial to establish national and international vector surveillance programs to monitor the spread of vectors, in particular for T. rubrofasciata as it is implemented in southern China (Liu et al., 2017), and to register Chagas disease as a reportable disease.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

1. 1. GBIF

   (2019) Global Biodiversity Information Facility

   GBIF Occurrence Download.

   https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.yneo2v
2. 1. Fergnani PN
   2. Ruggiero A
   3. Ceccarelli S
   4. Menu F
   5. Rabinovich J

   (2013) figshare

   Large-scale patterns in morphological diversity, and species assembly in Neotropical Triatominae (Heteroptera: Reduviidae).

   https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.653959.v6

1. 1. Abad-Franch F
   2. Palomeque FS
   3. Aguilar HM
   4. Miles MA

   (2005) Field ecology of sylvatic Rhodnius populations (Heteroptera, triatominae): risk factors for palm tree infestation in western ecuador

   Tropical Medicine & International Health 10:1258–1266.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01511.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Almeida CE
   2. Francischetti CN
   3. Pacheco RS
   4. Costa J

   (2003) Triatoma rubrovaria (Blanchard, 1843) (Hemiptera-Reduviidae-Triatominae) III: patterns of feeding, defecation and resistance to starvation

   Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 98:367–372.

   https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02762003000300012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Araújo MB
   2. New M

   (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions

   Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22:42–47.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.09.010

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Belliard SA
   2. De la Vega GJ
   3. Schilman PE

   (2019) Thermal tolerance plasticity in chagas disease vectors Rhodnius prolixus (Hemiptera: reduviidae) and Triatoma infestans

   Journal of Medical Entomology 56:997–1003.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjz022

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Brenière SF
   2. Buitrago R
   3. Waleckx E
   4. Depickère S
   5. Sosa V
   6. Barnabé C
   7. Gorla D

   (2017) Wild populations of Triatoma infestans: compilation of positive sites and comparison of their ecological niche with domestic population niche

   Acta Tropica 176:228–235.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.08.009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bustamante DM
   2. Monroy MC
   3. Rodas AG
   4. Abraham Juarez J
   5. Malone JB

   (2007) Environmental determinants of the distribution of chagas disease vectors in south-eastern Guatemala

   Geospatial Health 1:199–211.

   https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2007.268

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cantillo-Barraza O
   2. Chaverra D
   3. Marcet P
   4. Arboleda-Sánchez S
   5. Triana-Chávez O

   (2014) Trypanosoma cruzi transmission in a colombian caribbean region suggests that secondary vectors play an important epidemiological role

   Parasites & Vectors 7:381.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-381

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cantillo-Barraza O
   2. Garcés E
   3. Gómez-Palacio A
   4. Cortés LA
   5. Pereira A
   6. Marcet PL
   7. Jansen AM
   8. Triana-Chávez O

   (2015) Eco-epidemiological study of an endemic chagas disease region in northern Colombia reveals the importance of Triatoma maculata (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), dogs and Didelphis marsupialis in Trypanosoma cruzi maintenance

   Parasites & Vectors 8:482.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1100-2

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. Book

   1. Carcavallo RU
   2. Giron IG
   3. Jurberg J
   4. Lent H

   (1997)

   Atlas of the Chagas Disease Vectors in the Americas

   Editora Fiocruz .

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Carcavallo RU
    2. Curto de Casa S
    3. Sherlock IA
    4. Galíndez-Girón I
    5. Jurberg J
    6. Galvão C
    7. Mena Segura CA
    8. Noireau F

    (1998)

    Atlas of Chagas Disease Vectors in the Americas

    747–792, Geographical distribution and Alti - Latitudinal dispersion, Atlas of Chagas Disease Vectors in the Americas,  Editora Fiocruz.

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Carlier Y
    2. Torrico F
    3. Sosa-Estani S
    4. Russomando G
    5. Luquetti A
    6. Freilij H
    7. Albajar Vinas P

    (2011) Congenital chagas disease: recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and control of newborns, siblings and pregnant women

    PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 5:e1250.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001250

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. Book

    1. Catalá SS
    2. Noireau F
    3. Dujardin J-P

    (2017)

    Biology of Triatominae

    In: Telleria J, Tibayrenc M, editors. American Trypanosomiasis Chagas Disease: One Hundred Years of Research. Elsevier. pp. 145–167.

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Ceccarelli S
    2. Balsalobre A
    3. Susevich ML
    4. Echeverria MG
    5. Gorla DE
    6. Marti GA

    (2015) Modelling the potential geographic distribution of triatomines infected by Triatoma virus in the southern cone of south America

    Parasites & Vectors 8:153.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0761-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Ceccarelli S
    2. Balsalobre A
    3. Medone P
    4. Cano ME
    5. Gurgel Gonçalves R
    6. Feliciangeli D
    7. Vezzani D
    8. Wisnivesky-Colli C
    9. Gorla DE
    10. Marti GA
    11. Rabinovich JE

    (2018) DataTri, a database of american triatomine species occurrence

    Scientific Data 5:180071.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.71

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Ceccarelli S
    2. Rabinovich JE

    (2015) Global climate change effects on Venezuela's Vulnerability to Chagas Disease is Linked to the Geographic Distribution of Five Triatomine Species

    Journal of Medical Entomology 52:1333–1343.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjv119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cortéz MG
    2. Gonçalves TC

    (1998) Resistance to starvation of Triatoma rubrofasciata (De geer, 1773) under laboratory conditions (Hemiptera: reduviidae: triatominae)

    Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 93:549–554.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02761998000400024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Costa MJ
    2. Perondini ALP

    (1973) Resistência do Triatoma brasiliensis ao jejum

    Revista De Saúde Pública 7:207–217.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89101973000300003

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Coura JR
    2. Junqueira AC
    3. Fernandes O
    4. Valente SA
    5. Miles MA

    (2002) Emerging chagas disease in amazonian Brazil

    Trends in Parasitology 18:171–176.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-4922(01)02200-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Coura JR
    2. Viñas PA

    (2010) Chagas disease: a new worldwide challenge

    Nature 465:S6–S7.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09221

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cucunubá ZM
    2. Nouvellet P
    3. Peterson JK
    4. Bartsch SM
    5. Lee BY
    6. Dobson AP
    7. Basáñez M-G

    (2018) Complementary paths to chagas disease elimination: the impact of combining vector control with etiological treatment

    Clinical Infectious Diseases 66:S293–S300.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy006

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Curtis-Robles R
    2. Hamer SA
    3. Lane S
    4. Levy MZ
    5. Hamer GL

    (2018) Bionomics and spatial distribution of triatomine vectors of Trypanosoma cruzi in Texas and Other Southern States, USA

    The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 98:113–121.

    https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0526

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. da Rosa JA
    2. Justino HHG
    3. Nascimento JD
    4. Mendonça VJ
    5. Rocha CS
    6. de Carvalho DB
    7. Falcone R
    8. de Azeredo-Oliveira MTV
    9. Alevi KCC
    10. de Oliveira J

    (2017) A new species of Rhodnius from Brazil (Hemiptera, Reduviidae, triatominae)

    ZooKeys 675:1–25.

    https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.675.12024

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. de la Vega GJ
    2. Medone P
    3. Ceccarelli S
    4. Rabinovich J
    5. Schilman PE

    (2015) Geographical distribution, climatic variability and thermo-tolerance of chagas disease vectors

    Ecography 38:851–860.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01028

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. de la Vega GJ
    2. Schilman PE

    (2018) Ecological and physiological thermal niches to understand distribution of chagas disease vectors in Latin America

    Medical and Veterinary Entomology 32:1–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12262

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. de Souza RC
    2. Diotaiuti L
    3. Lorenzo MG
    4. Gorla DE

    (2010) Analysis of the geographical distribution of Triatoma vitticeps (Stål, 1859) based on data of species occurrence in minas gerais, Brazil

    Infection, Genetics and Evolution 10:720–726.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2010.05.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Deane MP
    2. Deane LM

    (1961)

    Studies on the lifecycle of Trypanosoma conorrhini. “In vitro” development and multiplication of the bloodstream trypanosomes

    Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo.  3:149–160.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Diniz-Filho JAF
    2. Ceccarelli S
    3. Hasperué W
    4. Rabinovich J

    (2013) Geographical patterns of triatominae (Heteroptera: reduviidae) richness and distribution in the western hemisphere

    Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:704–714.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12025

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Diotaiuti L
    2. Loiola CF
    3. Falcão PL
    4. Dias JCP

    (1993) The ecology of Triatoma sordida in natural environments in two different regions of the state of minas gerais, Brazil

    Revista Do Instituto De Medicina Tropical De São Paulo 35:237–245.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-46651993000300004

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Dong L
    2. Ma X
    3. Wang M
    4. Zhu D
    5. Feng Y
    6. Zhang Y
    7. Wang J

    (2018) Complete mitochondrial genome of the chagas disease vector, Triatoma rubrofasciata

    The Korean Journal of Parasitology 56:515–519.

    https://doi.org/10.3347/kjp.2018.56.5.515

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Dujardin JP
    2. Pham Thi K
    3. Truong Xuan L
    4. Panzera F
    5. Pita S
    6. Schofield CJ

    (2015a) Epidemiological status of kissing-bugs in South East Asia: a preliminary assessment

    Acta Tropica 151:142–149.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.06.022

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Dujardin JP
    2. Lam TX
    3. Khoa PT
    4. Schofield CJ

    (2015b) The rising importance of Triatoma rubrofasciata

    Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 110:319–323.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760140446

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Elith J
    2. H. Graham C
    3. P. Anderson R
    4. Dudík M
    5. Ferrier S
    6. Guisan A
    7. J. Hijmans R
    8. Huettmann F
    9. R. Leathwick J
    10. Lehmann A
    11. Li J
    12. G. Lohmann L
    13. A. Loiselle B
    14. Manion G
    15. Moritz C
    16. Nakamura M
    17. Nakazawa Y
    18. McC. M. Overton J
    19. Townsend Peterson A
    20. J. Phillips S
    21. Richardson K
    22. Scachetti-Pereira R
    23. E. Schapire R
    24. Soberón J
    25. Williams S
    26. S. Wisz M
    27. E. Zimmermann N

    (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data

    Ecography 29:129–151.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x

    • Google Scholar
33. Software

    1. ESRI

    (2018)

    ArcGIS Desktop. Release 10.7

    Environmental Systems Research Institute.
34. Conference

    1. Eugenio F
    2. Minakawa N

    (2012) The kissing bug in Quezon City

    The 64nd Annual Meeting of the Japan Society of Medical Entomology and Zoology.

    https://doi.org/10.11536/jsmez.64.0_67_1

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Feliciangeli MD
    2. Suarez B
    3. Martínez C
    4. Carrasco H
    5. Medina M
    6. Patterson JS

    (2004) Mixed domestic infestation by Rhodnius prolixus stäl, 1859 and Panstrongylus geniculatus latreille, 1811, vector incrimination, and seroprevalence for Trypanosoma cruzi among inhabitants in El Guamito, lara state, Venezuela

    The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 71:501–505.

    https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.501

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Fergnani PN
    2. Ruggiero A
    3. Ceccarelli S
    4. Menu F
    5. Rabinovich J

    (2013) Large-scale patterns in morphological diversity and species assemblages in neotropical triatominae (Heteroptera: reduviidae)

    Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 108:997–1008.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-0276130369

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Ferreira LL
    2. Pereira MH
    3. Guarneri AA

    (2015) Revisiting Trypanosoma rangeli transmission involving susceptible and non-susceptible hosts

    PLOS ONE 10:e0140575.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140575

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Fick SE
    2. Hijmans RJ

    (2017) WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land Areas

    International Journal of Climatology 37:4302–4315.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Fleming-Moran M

    (1992) The initial success of the chagas' Disease control program: factors contributing to triatomine infestation

    Cadernos De Saúde Pública 8:391–403.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X1992000400005

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Forattini OP

    (1980) Biogeografia, origem e distribuição da domiciliação de triatomíneos no brasil

    Revista De Saúde Pública 14:265–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89101980000300002

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Galvão C
    2. Justi SA

    (2015) An overview on the ecology of triatominae (Hemiptera:reduviidae)

    Acta Tropica 151:116–125.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.06.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Garza M
    2. Feria Arroyo TP
    3. Casillas EA
    4. Sanchez-Cordero V
    5. Rivaldi CL
    6. Sarkar S

    (2014) Projected future distributions of vectors of Trypanosoma cruzi in North America under climate change scenarios

    PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 8:e2818.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002818

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019a) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.yneo2v
44. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019b) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.z5ujep
45. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019c) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.f7llvz
46. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019d) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.wlpggh
47. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019e) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.tivrxd
48. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019f) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.j3ameo
49. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019g) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.vjqcgv
50. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019h) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.y9thnj
51. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019i) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.lfcmbf
52. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019j) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.cyfvru
53. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019k) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.hi7c3s
54. Data

    1. GBIF.org

    (authors) (2019l) GBIF occurrence download

    Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

    https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.kw4n5q
55. Software

    1. Geiger G

    (1961)

    Klima der Erde (Überarbeitete Neuausgabe von Geiger, R.: Koppen-Geiger)

    Wandkarte 1:16 Mill., Klett-Perthes.
56. 1. Gorla DE
    2. Dujardin JP
    3. Schofield CJ

    (1997) Biosystematics of old world triatominae

    Acta Tropica 63:127–140.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-706X(97)87188-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Gorla DE

    (2002)

    Variables ambientales registradas por sensors remotos como indicadores de la distribución geográfica de Triatoma infestans (Heteroptera: reduviidae)

    Ecología Austral 12:117–127.

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Guarneri AA
    2. Lazzari C
    3. Xavier AAP
    4. Diotaiuti L
    5. Lorenzo MG

    (2003) The effect of temperature on the behaviour and development of Triatoma brasiliensis

    Physiological Entomology 28:185–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3032.2003.00330.x

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Gurgel-Gonçalves R
    2. Ferreira JB
    3. Rosa AF
    4. Bar ME
    5. Galvão C

    (2011) Geometric morphometrics and ecological niche modelling for delimitation of near-sibling triatomine species

    Medical and Veterinary Entomology 25:84–93.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2915.2010.00920.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Gurgel-Gonçalves R
    2. Galvão C
    3. Costa J
    4. Peterson AT

    (2012) Geographic distribution of chagas disease vectors in Brazil based on ecological niche modeling

    Journal of Tropical Medicine 2012:1–15.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/705326

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Hashimoto K
    2. Schofield CJ

    (2012) Elimination of Rhodnius prolixus in central america

    Parasites & Vectors 5:45–52.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-45

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Hernández J
    2. Núñez I
    3. Bacigalupo A
    4. Cattan PE

    (2013) Modeling the spatial distribution of chagas disease vectors using environmental variables and people´s knowledge

    International Journal of Health Geographics 12:29.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-12-29

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Huang YL
    2. Huang DN
    3. Wu WH
    4. Yang F
    5. Zhang XM
    6. Wang M
    7. Tang YJ
    8. Zhang Q
    9. Peng LF
    10. Zhang RL

    (2018) Identification and characterization of the causative triatomine bugs of anaphylactic shock in Zhanjiang, China

    Infectious Diseases of Poverty 7:127.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-018-0509-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Ibarra-Cerdeña CN
    2. Zaldívar-Riverón A
    3. Peterson AT
    4. Sánchez-Cordero V
    5. Ramsey JM

    (2014) Phylogeny and niche conservatism in north and central american triatomine bugs (Hemiptera: reduviidae: triatominae), Vectors of chagas' Disease

    PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 8:e3266.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003266

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Jurberg J
    2. Galvão C

    (2006)

    Biology, ecology and systematics of triatominae (Heteroptera, Reduviidae), vectors of chagas disease, and implications for human health

    Biol Linz 50:1096–1116.

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Lazzari C

    (1991) Temperature preference in Triatoma infestans (Hemiptera: reduviidae)

    Bulletin of Entomological Research 81:273–276.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300033538

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Lee BY
    2. Bacon KM
    3. Bottazzi ME
    4. Hotez PJ

    (2013) Global economic burden of chagas disease: a computational simulation model

    The Lancet Infectious Diseases 13:342–348.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70002-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Li X
    2. Wang Y

    (2013) Applying various algorithms for species distribution modelling

    Integrative Zoology 8:124–135.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12000

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Liu Q
    2. Guo YH
    3. Zhang Y
    4. Zhou ZB
    5. Zhang LL
    6. Zhu D
    7. Zhou XN

    (2017) First records of Triatoma rubrofasciata (De geer, 1773) (Hemiptera, Reduviidae) in Foshan, Guangdong Province, southern china

    Infectious Diseases of Poverty 6:129.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-017-0342-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Luz C
    2. Fargues J
    3. Grunewald J

    (1998) The effect of fluctuating temperature and humidity on the longevity of starved Rhodnius prolixus (Hem., Triatominae)

    Journal of Applied Entomology 122:219–222.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1998.tb01487.x

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Mendonça VJ
    2. Alevi KC
    3. Pinotti H
    4. Gurgel-Gonçalves R
    5. Pita S
    6. Guerra AL
    7. Panzera F
    8. De Araújo RF
    9. Azeredo-Oliveir MT
    10. Rosa JA

    (2016) Revalidation of Triatoma bahiensis sherlock & serafim, 1967 (Hemiptera: reduviidae) and phylogeny of the T. brasiliensis species complex

    Zootaxa 4107:239–254.

    https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4107.2.6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Monteiro FA
    2. Weirauch C
    3. Felix M
    4. Lazoski C
    5. Abad-Franch F

    (2018) Evolution, systematics, and biogeography of the triatominae, vectors of chagas disease

    Advances in Parasitology 99:265–344.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apar.2017.12.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Nóbrega AA
    2. Garcia MH
    3. Tatto E
    4. Obara MT
    5. Costa E
    6. Sobel J
    7. Araujo WN

    (2009) Oral transmission of chagas disease by consumption of açaí palm fruit, Brazil

    Emerging Infectious Diseases 15:653–655.

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1504.081450

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Parra-Henao G
    2. Suárez-Escudero LC
    3. González-Caro S

    (2016) Potential distribution of chagas disease vectors (Hemiptera, Reduviidae, triatominae) in Colombia, based on ecological niche modeling

    Journal of Tropical Medicine 2016:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1439090

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Patterson JS
    2. Schofield CJ
    3. Dujardin JP
    4. Miles MA

    (2001) Population morphometric analysis of the tropicopolitan bug Triatoma rubrofasciata and relationships with old world species of Triatoma: evidence of new world ancestry

    Medical and Veterinary Entomology 15:443–451.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0269-283x.2001.00333.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Patterson JS
    2. Barbosa SE
    3. Feliciangeli MD

    (2009) On the genus Panstrongylus berg 1879: evolution, ecology and epidemiological significance

    Acta Tropica 110:187–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.09.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Péneau J
    2. Nguyen A
    3. Flores-Ferrer A
    4. Blanchet D
    5. Gourbière S

    (2016) Amazonian triatomine biodiversity and the transmission of chagas disease in french guiana: in medio stat sanitas

    PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 10:e0004427.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004427

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Pereira JM
    2. Almeida PSde
    3. Sousa AVde
    4. Paula AMde
    5. Gurgel-Goncalves R
    6. Gurgel-Goncalves R

    (2013) Climatic factors influencing triatomine occurrence in Central-West brazil

    Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 108:335–341.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02762013000300012

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Pinto Dias JC

    (2013) Human chagas disease and migration in the context of globalization: some particular aspects

    Journal of Tropical Medicine 2013:789758.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/789758

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Poinar G

    (2013)

    Panstrongylus hispaniolae sp. n. (Hemiptera: reduviidae: triatominae), a fossil triatomine in Dominican amber, with evidence of gut flagellates

    Palaeodiversity 6:1–8.

    • Google Scholar
81. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.0.2

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.R-project.org/
82. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.6.0

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.R-project.org/
83. 1. Rabinovich JE
    2. Kitron UD
    3. Obed Y
    4. Yoshioka M
    5. Gottdenker N
    6. Chaves LF

    (2011) Ecological patterns of blood-feeding by kissing-bugs (Hemiptera: reduviidae: triatominae)

    Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 106:479–494.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02762011000400016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Rebêlo JM
    2. Barros VL
    3. Mendes WA

    (1998) Espécies de triatominae (Hemiptera: reduviidae) do estado do maranhão, brasil

    Cadernos De Saúde Pública 14:187–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X1998000100027

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Rocha D
    2. Santos C
    3. Cunha V
    4. Jurberg J
    5. Galvão C

    (2004) Ciclo biológico em laboratório de Rhodnius brethesi matta, 1919 (Hemiptera, Reduviidae, triatominae), potencial Vetor Silvestre da doença de chagas na amazônia

    Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 99:591–595.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02762004000600010

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Rodriguero MS
    2. Gorla DE

    (2004) Latitudinal gradient in species richness of the new world triatominae (Reduviidae)

    Global Ecology and Biogeography 13:75–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-882X.2004.00071.x

    • Google Scholar
87. Software

    1. Rosas F
    2. Roa N
    3. Cucunubá ZM
    4. Cuéllar A
    5. Gonzalez JM
    6. Puerta CJ

    (2012) Chagasic cardiomyopathy

     Cardiomyopathies - From Basic Research to Clinical Management.

    http://www.intechopen.com/books/cardiomyopathies-from-basic-research-to-clinical-management/chagasiccardiomyopathy
88. 1. Sandoval-Ruiz CA
    2. Zumaquero-Rios JL
    3. Rojas-Soto OR

    (2008) Predicting geographic and ecological distributions of triatomine species in the southern mexican state of Puebla using ecological niche modeling

    Journal of Medical Entomology 45:540–546.

    https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[540:PGAEDO]2.0.CO;2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. Book

    1. Schofield C

    (1988)

    Biosystematics of Triatominae. Biosystematics of haematophagous insects

    In: Service M. W, editors. Systematics Association Special. Clarendon Press. pp. 287–312.

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Schofield CJ
    2. Grijalva MJ
    3. Diotaiuti L

    (2009)

    Distribución de los vectores de la enfermedad de chagas en países “no endémicos”: La posibilidad de transmission vectorial fuera de América Latina

    Revista Argentina De Zoonosis Y Enfermedades Infecciosas Emergentes 11:20–27.

    • Google Scholar
91. Software

    1. Thuiller W
    2. Georges D
    3. Engler R
    4. Breiner F

    (2019) biomod2, version 3.3–7.1

    Ensemble Platform for Species Distribution Modeling.

    https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=biomod2
92. Website

    1. VAST

    (2014) Study on biology distribution and habitat of kissing bugs in provinces and cities in Vietnam

    Accessed April 8, 2019.

    http://www.vast.ac.vn/en/news/science-and-technology-news/1641-study-on-biology-distribution-and-habitat-of-kissing-bugs-in-provinces-and-cities-in-vietnam
93. 1. Vieira CB
    2. Praça YR
    3. Bentes K
    4. Santiago PB
    5. Silva SMM
    6. Silva GDS
    7. Motta FN
    8. Bastos IMD
    9. de Santana JM
    10. de Araújo CN

    (2018) Triatomines: trypanosomatids, Bacteria, and viruses potential vectors?

    Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 8:405.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2018.00405

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. Website

    1. WHO

    (2019) World health organization. chagas disease (American trypanosomiasis)

    Accessed June 30, 2019.

    https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chagas-disease-(american-trypanosomiasis)

Acceptance summary:

This paper provides an interesting analysis of the climate and environmental factors driving the vector occurrence for Chagas disease, a tropical disease that is transmitted by insects of the Triatominae subfamily and affects several million people worldwide. The topic and the results of this research are relevant, novel and with important public health implications for a global vector surveillance effort.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Modelling the climatic suitability of Chagas disease vectors on a global scale" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by Neil Ferguson as the Senior Editor, a Reviewing Editor, and two reviewers. The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Zulma Cucunubá (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

Summary:

This paper provides an interesting analysis of the climate and environmental drivers of Chagas vector occurrence, and comments on the implications for surveillance.

Both reviewers found the paper of interest but identified major limitations which need to be addressed. Given the nature of some comments, acceptance of a revised manuscript is not guaranteed.

Essential revisions:

Refer to the full reviews for details but the following are the most critical issues:

- the source data – both reviewers comment that it is not very current. More recent occurrence data should be included if at all possible. Why was the Cecarelli, 2018 dataset not used? More detail on the data is also needed (see reviewer 2).

- pseudo absence points – comments of reviewer 1 need to be fully addressed, including the lack of absence points in the validation dataset.

- validation set – data from only one species was used (see reviewer 1) – again, the rationale for this needs to be given, and I would prefer to see spatially stratified model selection and cross-validation used (e.g. spatial block bootstrap).

- model choice and settings used – these need to be justified and sensitivity analyses undertaken (see reviewer 1). In general, more detail of the modelling (including the ensemble approach) is needed – see both reviews.

Reviewer #1:

Overall, an interesting topic with some relevant approaches applied. Currently some serious lack of detail and rigour in the modelling approach that prevents this from being a valuable addition to the literature and may not be feasible to address in reasonable timescales. This makes the results and their significance difficult to interpret.

Essential revisions:

The occurrence data from these models come from a single source published in 1998 (Carcavallo et al., 1998). Surely there must be more up-to-date data on occurrence of these species? Particularly with the advent of services like GBIF (which the authors cite for one species). The robustness of these maps could be substantially improved if more modern data were included.

The "validation set" is comprised of data from a literature review for Triatoma rubrofasciata and appears to cover a more modern time period (citations dated 2006-2009). Why was this only done for one species? Doing a prospective evaluation of the ENM is certainly one approach, but the limitations of this validation approach should be explored, e.g. confirmation bias (are people just doing surveys in areas where the atlas indicates presence?), important changes in the distribution over time, etc, etc.

Pseudo-absence and lack of absence data in validation set. The choice of random pseudo absence generation when combined with non-systematically sampled occurrence data is problematic for both accuracy metrics and overprediction and has been discussed at length (e.g. Chefaoui and Lobo, 2008) – effectively it means you map surveillance effort not occurrence of the species. I don't think random pseudo absence data is a suitable choice for this approach given the variable surveillance effort. Also including Arctic and Antarctic areas and generally areas that are a long way away from presence points is a good way to artificially boost your AUC – is anyone really hypothesising that these species can spread to these regions? The lack of absence data in the "validation set" is also problematic and leads the models to prioritise sensitivity over specificity. Arguably this should be the other way around as the primary use for the maps is to target surveillance to areas where importation may be a problem. The authors should consider a more nuanced approach to absence data. Could occurrence points for other species be indicative of surveillance effort?

Subsection “Species distribution modelling”, "All algorithms were run with default settings" – these are a complex set of methods with a large number of tuneable hyperparameters. I'm not sure it is a fair comparison to just leave them with default settings, nor is it a good way to optimise fit. I'd like to see a clear rationale for why these classes of methods were chosen, relevant choices for hyperparameters and ideally some experiments to validate these choices.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript reports a niche modelling predicting the global climatic suitability of eleven triatomine species (competent Trypanosoma cruzi vector).

The topic and the results of this research are very relevant, novel and with important public health implications for a global vector surveillance effort, especially regarding Triatoma rubrofasciata. The paper also provides a comprehensive discussion. However, the manuscript lacks some methodological details to help the reader understand how the analysis was conducted and which are the limitations and implications of both the methodological approach and therefore the results.

Occurrence records:

The section describing the data should be extended. I acknowledge the authors have used a dataset of 4155 unique points, most of them already collated by other authors (Fergnani et al., 2013) who in turn extracted the data from another publication (Carcavallo et al., 1998). But some basic information is needed in order to assess what the dataset encompasses.

Was there any quality control used for data extraction?

Are there any concerns about biases in data collection?

Did the data undertake any time standardisation?

What are the potentials concerns of not having occurrence data beyond 1999 for the American triatomine species?

It would be important to have a figure showing the distribution of the data points per species, even if it is just on the Supplementary materials.

Very important, some of the authors from the main source of information (Fergnani et al., 2013), published a data paper (Ceccarelli et al., 2018) with 21815 georeferenced triatomine records updated until 2017. What are the implications of using (or not using) a more updated dataset like this one?

Results section:

I acknowledge this is a prediction effort at a global scale, but I found hard to understand how the model predicts about 70% of climatic suitability for some species across very large areas that include the highlands (above 2500 MAMSL) in South America (i.e. R. prolixus or P. geniculatus in Bogota). This even considering the model does not include a climate change scenario. Also, when compared to previous publications on climatic suitability in the Americas I found concerning differences for some species such as R. prolixus in Colombia (Parra-Henao et al., 2016) or P. megistus in Brazil (Gurgel-Gonçalves et al., 2012).

From the maps it seems this work tends to predict a much larger distribution of some of these species in the Americas than previous works did. Not having high resolution maps and the absence of country boundaries makes it harder to tell about potential problems in the predictions at a smaller scale.

It is interesting to see that although for some species the number of records is very scarce (i.e. Rhodnius ecuadoriensis n = 31) the AUC values are still very high. There is no mention about the limitations regarding the data on the Discussion section.

On Figure 1A 'consensus model' is mentioned. But the basic details about this model have not been mentioned on the Materials and methods section.

Discussion section:

The authors mention "we were able to divide the considered species roughly into three groups dependent on their climatic habitat preferences". I did not find clearly which are those three groups and which were the methods to identify them.

To put this work into context, it would be important to include a discussion point about the highly effective vector control and other factors (i.e. housing conditions) that would potentially determine environmental suitability, beyond the climatic suitability.

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for submitting your article "Modelling the climatic suitability of Chagas disease vectors on a global scale" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by Anna Akhmanova as the Senior Editor, a Reviewing Editor, and two reviewers. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission. In recognition of the fact that revisions may take longer than the two months we typically allow, until the research enterprise restarts in full, we will give authors as much time as they need to submit revised manuscripts.

The reviewers agreed that the paper has been substantially improved, but also identified some remaining points that need to be addressed. No collection of new data will be needed to address reviewer comments.

Essential revisions:

1) Please add additional detail about the data used, how they were extracted, curated and filtered prior to analysis to the Materials and methods section of the manuscript.

2) Running the models with default parameter values only – both reviewers felt this point was insufficiently addressed. Please conduct further dataset-specific analyses to support your choice of model parameters.

3) Please review the manuscript figures to make it clearer how well the model prediction matches the data and be more explicit how uncertainty was calculated and represented and include this in the main text when discussing findings.

Please see below the individual comments from each reviewer for a more detailed explanation of issues related to each of the above points. All reviewer points will need to be addressed point-by-point in your revised submission.

Reviewer #1:

I'd like to thank the authors for their detailed responses and additions to this work in regards to the majority of my points raised. I think all but one of these have now been adequately addressed. On point 6 [running models with default parameters only] – I don't think this particular comment has been addressed. Suggesting that such parameters have been "optimised by the biomod2 development team" is not realistic given the breadth of problems that these algorithms are applied to. To take one example, in the documentation for GAMs in the "mgcv" package (that biomod2 calls) there is extensive advice on basis dimension choice for smooths and the explicit statement "The choice of the basis dimension (k in the s, te, ti and t2 terms) is something that should be considered carefully" and a range of model diagnostic statistics and plots are suggested to tune such parameters. This is one example of many and, as a reader, I do not have great confidence in the work if some of these model flexibility parameters are not at least explored. What makes the issue worse is that a reader currently has no way of diagnosing what impact this oversight might have as there are no model coefficients or effects plots presented in the manuscript. I appreciate that this is a common oversight in many ML modelling applications, but even a basic sensitivity analysis would be a big improvement over using the default values.

Reviewer #2:

I acknowledge the authors have made substantial improvements to the original version of the manuscript following the reviewers' recommendations. The modifications imply a remarkable change on the original predicted distributions. However, some considerations in terms of the methodology and the presentation of the results remain.

About the data:

My main worry is that the methods section remains limited in the details and particularly in terms of the data that has been used, which makes very difficult to understand all the work that has been done. I suggest the authors consider adding a sub-section on the Materials and methods section dedicated exclusively to explain where the data come from.

For example, the authors mention as data source the "Atlas of Chagas disease vectors in the Americas (Carcavallo et al., 1998) which were digitised at a 0.1^o x 0.1^o resolution by Fergnani et al. (2013)". What does exactly "digitised" mean? Is it Fergnani already a modelling work on the Atlas data? What is the difference between Carcavallo and Fergnani data? This becomes even more important as Carcavallo is a book with restricted access so that it is difficult to trace the original source.

This is further confusing later when the authors cite Supplementary file 4 as the occurrence data, citing Carcavallo and not Fergnani.

In subsection “Occurrence data” they mention that "In total, 4155 unique occurrence points were collected ranging from 31 for Rhodnius ecuadoriensis to 1180 for Panstrongylus geniculatus (Table 1)." Were these points collected by the authors? This is somehow contradictory to the use of already collected data from Carcavallo/Fergnani.

Further on the same topic, the authors mention on their reply to the reviewers that they have "We carefully compared both datasets and plotted them in ArcGIS. It turned out that the Ceccarelli as well as the GBIF occurrence records are completely covered by the Atlas data". This should be explicitly mentioned in the Materials and methods section and the comparison map added as supplementary information.

Also, the authors mention (subsection “Occurrence data”) that "Additional global occurrences of Triatoma rubrofasciata from an intensive literature search were used". However, in the Materials and methods section there is not mention to the details of the review process followed to obtain such data (which databases, which quality control, which languages, which temporal filter they have used, etc). If the data for Triatoma rubrofasciata is used as data points, how different is the methodology for this species compared to the other species?

About the statistical methods:

In subsection “Species distribution modelling”, the authors mention "All algorithms were run with default settings except for MAXENT, GLM and GBM." In response to a reviewer's comment about what those default setting imply, the authors mention that "We have carefully examined the different parameters and changed the information criteria for the stepwise selection procedure in GLM to 'Akaike Information Criteria (AIC)' and the number of terminal nodes in GBM to 6 as it is recommended by Friedman (2002)". I believe the reasoning behind the "default settings" has not been clarified yet.

About the Results section and Discussion section:

In Supplementary file 4 there is not needed to show the background colours but simply the distribution of the data. The background does not really help to see the data.

Could you please explain why in the Global validation it was possible to estimate sensitivity but not specificity for T. rubrofasciata?

In the Results section it is mentioned several times some agreements and disagreements between the model and the data for various species. For example, in the Discussion section "the models appear to slightly overestimate the potential distribution as it could be noted in the modelling of T. dimidiate". However, it is actually hard for the reader to note exactly where these potential overestimates are occurring. It will be great if you can have a figure (even if it is a set of figures in Supplementary file) where you show both the model predictions with the occurrence data on top so the reader can judge and understand where the model is fitting well and not that well, as you have done for T. rubrofasciata on Figure 2.

In Figure 1 (and also Figure 2) it is mentioned that "Hatched areas indicate regions where the projection is uncertain". There are two problems with this uncertainty:

- The size of the panels makes the figures so small that it is impossible to actually see the hatched areas.

- What does it mean "uncertain"? It should be clearly explained in the Materials and methods section how such uncertainty was estimated. Is there a metric for such uncertainty?

These problems with showing uncertainty in both Figure 1 and Figure 2 could be solved by having other similar figures exclusively for uncertainty.

To avoid confusion, I encourage authors to use a more cautious language when referring to climate suitability rather than actual presence of a particular species. For example in subsection “Potential distribution under current climate conditions” they mention "T. brasiliensis prefers dry and wet savannah climate as found in eastern Brazil and southern West Africa, northern and southern Central Africa and East Africa". But, in reality T. brasiliensis hasn't ever been found in Africa.

Essential revisions:

Refer to the full reviews for details but the following are the most critical issues:

- the source data – both reviewers comment that it is not very current. More recent occurrence data should be included if at all possible. Why was the Cecarelli, 2018 dataset not used? More detail on the data is also needed (see reviewer 2).

- pseudo absence points – comments of reviewer 1 need to be fully addressed, including the lack of absence points in the validation dataset.

-validation set – data from only one species was used (see reviewer 1) – again, the rationale for this needs to be given, and I would prefer to see spatially stratified model selection and cross-validation used (e.g. spatial block bootstrap).

- model choice and settings used – these need to be justified and sensitivity analyses undertaken (see reviewer 1). In general, more detail of the modelling (including the ensemble approach) is needed – see both reviews.

Before answering point by point, we would like to briefly summarise our answers to the main issues:

A) Occurrence data used for modelling

There are generally two potential datasets that can be used as occurrence records and possess different advantages and drawbacks; Carcavallo et al. (1998), which were digitised at a 0.1° x 0.1° resolution by Fergnani et al. (2013) and used in our first version, and point data from e.g. Ceccarelli et al. (2018) and GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). We carefully compared both datasets and plotted them in ArcGIS. It turned out that the Ceccarelli as well as the GBIF occurrence records are completely covered by the Atlas data. We therefore do not assume that the Atlas data underestimate the distribution of the vectors.

Furthermore, we decided to use the Atlas data for the following reasons:

- the Atlas data match the time period of the climatic conditions used as predictor variables (WorldClim version 2, 1970-2000).

- point data such as GBIF data reflect the sampling and surveillance effort in a considered area, while the Atlas data are probably less effected by sampling bias.

- it also follows that the selected pseudo-absences are more reliable.

B) Background selection

We agree that the random background selection is not appropriate for all applied algorithms. We thus reran the analysis and now differentiate between presence-background models (MAXENT) and presence-absence models (ANN, GAM, GBM, GLM and MARS). During modelling with MAXENT, we still selected the background randomly as it is required. During modelling with the presence-absence algorithms, we selected the background (to be interpreted as pseudo-absences) using two different stratified sampling methods and compared the results. In the end, we decided to choose a background selection with geographical filtration (‘disk’) and not environmental filtration (‘sre’), because the latter tends to overestimate the distribution of the species (Figure 1).

C) Model validation

Triatoma rubrofasciata is the only triatomine species with recorded occurrences outside the Americas and in Latin America. Therefore, in our first version, we used this species to independently evaluate the global projection of the models comprising a sensitivity analysis. In the revised version, we also applied a cross-validation by splitting the dataset in a training set (70%) and a test set (30%).

D) More details on Materials and methods

We carefully reworked the Material and methods section, added more details to this part and expanded on some points in the Discussion section.

Reviewer #1:

Overall, an interesting topic with some relevant approaches applied. Currently some serious lack of detail and rigour in the modelling approach that prevents this from being a valuable addition to the literature and may not be feasible to address in reasonable timescales. This makes the results and their significance difficult to interpret.

Essential revisions:

The occurrence data from these models come from a single source published in 1998 (Carcavallo et al., 1998). Surely there must be more up-to-date data on occurrence of these species? Particularly with the advent of services like GBIF (which the authors cite for one species). The robustness of these maps could be substantially improved if more modern data were included.

We agree with reviewer 1 that data acquisition is quite often a challenge and at the same time the most crucial aspect for modelling. We are aware of the publication of recent occurrence data, in particular of the paper Ceccarelli et al. (2018) and the data from GBIF. We compared the recorded distribution of both datasets in ArcGIS and found that the distribution of the occurrence records from Ceccarelli as well as from GBIF are completely covered by the data of the Atlas (Carcavallo et al., 1998). This suggests that in recent years there has been no significant range expansion despite changes in climate. It could further indicate that the different species have stable distributions in South America.

Furthermore, the environmental variables from WorldClim comprise a time period from 1970 to 2000. Unfortunately, newer comprehensive climatic data are not available. Therefore, the Atlas data fit the explanatory climate variables much better than the newer GBIF and Ceccarelli distribution data. In addition, the comparison of the data, as already described, has not shown any noteworthy distribution shifts in recent years.

We would also like to point out that the Atlas data do not represent single point data, but have been digitized from maps in the Atlas (Carcavallo et al., 1998). This greatly mitigates a potential sampling or surveillance bias, which is evidently present in the Ceccarelli data as well as the GBIF data. This becomes clear, for example, in P.geniculatus, which is widespread in humid tropical forests to tropical dry forests and savannah in Colombia, Venezuela, Trinidad, Guyana, Surinam, French Guyana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama (Patterson et al., 2009). The Ceccarelli and GBIF data cover many occurrence points in Colombia, French Guiana and in the state of Espírito Santo in Brazil, where a ten-year entomological surveillance program was applied (Leite et al., 2007). In the Amazon Basin, however, the availability of occurrence points is very scarce and all registered points are located along river branches. Furthermore, the GBIF as well as the Ceccarelli data underestimate the species distribution achieved, especially for Triatoma rubrofasciata. For example, the vector has been detected in the Caribbean and in Central and North America which is not reproduced in the GBIF nor the Ceccarelli data sets, but in the Atlas data sets.

Due to a lower sampling bias, the Atlas data are also more suitable for presence-absence (PA) models such as GLM, GBM, GAM, ANN and MARS since the calculated pseudo-absence points are more reliable.

The "validation set" is comprised of data from a literature review for Triatoma rubrofasciata and appears to cover a more modern time period (citations dated 2006-2009). Why was this only done for one species? Doing a prospective evaluation of the ENM is certainly one approach, but the limitations of this validation approach should be explored, e.g. confirmation bias (are people just doing surveys in areas where the atlas indicates presence?), important changes in the distribution over time, etc, etc.

Triatomarubrofasciata is the only triatomine species found both in the Americas and in the Old World and has already spread to various countries. Therefore, it is the only species suitable for independent model validation outside the Americas. Due to very limited data, occurrence points of T.rubrofasciata from 1958 to 2018 were collected and used for validation. It is true that this results in certain limitations that need to be addressed. We have adjusted our Discussion section accordingly.

Also, a manual sensitivity analysis of the T. rubrofasciata modelling results was performed. For this purpose, the modelled climatic habitat suitability of T.rubrofasciata was read from global occurrence points and a cut-off of 50.95% was applied. This cut-off was obtained from the calculation of the ROC. The number of ‘true positives’ in the total amount of presence data was determined. This resulted in a sensitivity of 66.6%.

Additionally, we applied a cross-validation of the South American training data set.

Pseudo-absence and lack of absence data in validation set. The choice of random pseudo absence generation when combined with non-systematically sampled occurrence data is problematic for both accuracy metrics and overprediction and has been discussed at length (e.g. Chefaoui and Lobo, 2008) – effectively it means you map surveillance effort not occurrence of the species. I don't think random pseudo absence data is a suitable choice for this approach given the variable surveillance effort.

We thank reviewer 1 for this valuable advice and fully implemented it. A stratified background selection is strongly required when using presence-absence models but a random selection is appropriate when using presence-background models. We account for this in the revised analysis and used a stratified background sampling (with two different strategies: ‘disk’ and ‘sre’, for details see below) for the presence-absence models (GLM, GBM, GAM, ANN and MARS) but retained the random background selection for MAXENT.

We used both the pseudo-absence selection option ‘sre’ and the option ‘disk’ and compared them to one another. For the option ‘sre’ a surface range envelope model is first carried out (using a specified quantile 2.5%) on the species of interest, and then the pseudo-absence data are extracted outside of this envelope broadly comprising the environmental conditions for the species. This avoids absence selection in the same niche as the niche of the considered species. For the option ‘disk’, a minimal distance to presence points (80km, diagonal between two occurrence points) for selecting pseudo-absences candidates is defined. This avoids absence selection close to observed presences, and thus with similar climatic conditions. In the end, we opted for the absence selection with parameter ‘disk’ (Materials and methods section), because models with an absence selection with a surface range envelope tend to project very large areas as climatic suitable for the considered species – a circumstance that we could also observe in part in our models (Figure 1).

MAXENT is a presence-background modelling tool applying the principle of maximum entropy in such a way that the estimated species distribution deviates from a uniform distribution as little as it is necessary to explain the observations. Therefore, ‘random’ background selection is still required (nicely explained in Elith et al., 2011). Finally, we built the consensus maps from all six models. It is probably advisable that ensemble models in which presence-absence and presence-background models are used simultaneously, a nuanced pseudo-absence selection approach should always be used. Unfortunately, assembling all models requires a lot of manual work.

Also including Arctic and Antarctic areas and generally areas that are a long way away from presence points is a good way to artificially boost your AUC – is anyone really hypothesising that these species can spread to these regions?

We agree with the reviewer that an AUC validation applied to a broad range of environmental conditions can artificially improve the AUC outcome. However, the AUC values we provide are based only on the South American data (the training set) and do not include these regions. Only the projections of the potential distributions were carried out at a global scale. Nevertheless, we have now removed the Antarctic region for the depiction of the projection results (Figure 1) and tried to describe the process of modelling more clearly (Materials and methods section).

The lack of absence data in the "validation set" is also problematic and leads the models to prioritise sensitivity over specificity. Arguably this should be the other way around as the primary use for the maps is to target surveillance to areas where importation may be a problem. The authors should consider a more nuanced approach to absence data. Could occurrence points for other species be indicative of surveillance effort?

We followed the reviewer’s suggestion and adapted the validation of the models. It was carried out by splitting the original Latin American dataset into a subset used for calibrating the models (70% of the dataset) and a second subset to evaluate them (30%, cross-validation) (Materials and methods section).

For the manual global validation with T.rubrofasciata, we cannot provide meaningful absence data due to potential dispersal of the species.

The distribution of all South American GBIF data could be used to map the surveillance effort and to incorporate this into the modelling as a correction factor. This is a very interesting method, but not feasible here, since the Atlas data are not point data.

Subsection “Species distribution modelling”, "All algorithms were run with default settings" – these are a complex set of methods with a large number of tuneable hyperparameters. I'm not sure it is a fair comparison to just leave them with default settings, nor is it a good way to optimise fit. I'd like to see a clear rationale for why these classes of methods were chosen, relevant choices for hyperparameters and ideally some experiments to validate these choices.

We have carefully examined the different parameters and changed the information criteria for the stepwise selection procedure in GLM to ‘Akaike Information Criteria (AIC)’ and the number of terminal nodes in GBM to 6 as it is recommended by Friedman, (2002) (Materials and methods section). The other settings in biomod2 have already been optimized by the biomod2 development team and are not consistent with the default settings of the individual algorithms. However, if you have specific suggestions, we are happy to implement them.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript reports a niche modelling predicting the global climatic suitability of eleven triatomine species (competent Trypanosoma cruzi vector).

The topic and the results of this research are very relevant, novel and with important public health implications for a global vector surveillance effort, especially regarding Triatoma rubrofasciata. The paper also provides a comprehensive discussion. However, the manuscript lacks some methodological details to help the reader understand how the analysis was conducted and which are the limitations and implications of both the methodological approach and therefore the results.

Occurrence records:

The section describing the data should be extended. I acknowledge the authors have used a dataset of 4155 unique points, most of them already collated by other authors (Fergnani et al., 2013) who in turn extracted the data from another publication (Carcavallo et al., 1998). But some basic information is needed in order to assess what the dataset encompasses.

Was there any quality control used for data extraction?

We agree with the reviewer that a detailed quality control would be appropriate if the distribution data were point data from different sources, such as GBIF. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to sort out points that are close to one another, uncertain data, very old or new data that do not fit the explanatory climate variables. However, this is not useful for the Atlas data, as these are digitised distribution maps. For further details regarding the distribution data see point A ‘Occurrence data used for modelling’.

Are there any concerns about biases in data collection?

A sampling bias should not be very pronounced due to the digitised distribution maps and the lack of point occurrences from different sources.

Did the data undertake any time standardisation?

As part of the revision, we dealt a lot with the comparison of Atlas data and point data from GBIF and the literature and have considered this point in more depth. The Atlas data from 1998 fit well with the period in which the climate data (1970-2000) were recorded.

What are the potentials concerns of not having occurrence data beyond 1999 for the American triatomine species?

Since we train the models with climate data from 1970 to 2000, it is advisable not to use any occurrence data after 2000. It is possible and very likely that the climate has changed since then and that the modelled habitat suitability would look slightly different under present conditions. Particularly in the course of climate change, the models might underestimate the current distribution of thermophilic species. We included this point in the discussion (Discussion section). All in all, it would be good to have more recent and up-to-date climatic data, but these have not (yet) been published.

It would be important to have a figure showing the distribution of the data points per species, even if it is just on the Supplementary materials.

Done as suggested. We included distribution maps in the supplementary materials.

Very important, some of the authors from the main source of information (Fergnani et al., 2013), published a data paper (Ceccarelli et al., 2018) with 21815 georeferenced triatomine records updated until 2017. What are the implications of using (or not using) a more updated dataset like this one?

The issue was also mentioned by reviewer 1 and we combined our reply. For detailed explanation, please refer to point A “Occurrence data used for modelling”.

Results section:

I acknowledge this is a prediction effort at a global scale, but I found hard to understand how the model predicts about 70% of climatic suitability for some species across very large areas that include the highlands (above 2500 MAMSL) in South America (i.e. R. prolixus or P. geniculatus in Bogota). This even considering the model does not include a climate change scenario. Also, when compared to previous publications on climatic suitability in the Americas I found concerning differences for some species such as R prolixus in Colombia (Parra-Henao et al., 2016) or P. megistus in Brazil (Gurgel-Gonçalves et al., 2012).

From the maps it seems this work tends to predict a much larger distribution of some of these species in the Americas than previous works did. Not having high resolution maps and the absence of country boundaries makes it harder to tell about potential problems in the predictions at a smaller scale.

This could be due to the coarse resolution of the used occurrence data (rasterised polygon data). By applying the changed pseudo-absence selection, the modelled potential distribution has decreased. The algorithms work now more discriminatory, especially in higher altitudes. This can be seen, for example, in the different models for Rhodnius prolixus and Triatoma dimidiata (Figure 1). Furthermore, this work strives to indicate areas at risk on a global scale where triatomine species find climatically suitable environments. Therefore, we tried to use the algorithms not too restrictively.

High resolution maps (500dpi) are now available in the supplementary materials and administrative borders are included in the maps.

It is interesting to see that although for some species the number of records is very scarce (i.e. Rhodnius ecuadoriensis n = 31) the AUC values are still very high. There is no mention about the limitations regarding the data on the Discussion section.

This is not surprising, on the contrary, because of the few occurrence points, the AUC value is high for this species. The AUC value depends on the prevalence and, therefore, cannot be compared between species, but can only be used to compare the discriminatory quality of different models for a single species.

On Figure 1A 'consensus model' is mentioned. But the basic details about this model have not been mentioned on the Materials and methods section.

‘Consensus model’ refers to the ‘consensus maps’ of the ensemble forecasting described in the Materials and methods section. We harmonised our wording so that this becomes clearer.

Discussion section:

The authors mention "we were able to divide the considered species roughly into three groups dependent on their climatic habitat preferences". I did not find clearly which are those three groups and which were the methods to identify them.

This was a rough classification based on modelled habitat preferences as it is described in the Results section. We acknowledge that this apportionment into groups might be misleading and therefore opted for its removal (Results section; Discussion section).

To put this work into context, it would be important to include a discussion point about the highly effective vector control and other factors (i.e. housing conditions) that would potentially determine environmental suitability, beyond the climatic suitability.

A good point which we missed to mention in the first version. We included information about vector control measurements (Discussion section).

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Essential revisions:

1) Please add additional detail about the data used, how they were extracted, curated and filtered prior to analysis to the Materials and methods section of the manuscript.

We have completely revised the subsection “Data collection” and tried to explain the processing of the occurrence data more precisely. We also go into more detail about the compilation of the Triatoma rubrofasciata dataset.

2) Running the models with default parameter values only – both reviewers felt this point was insufficiently addressed. Please conduct further dataset-specific analyses to support your choice of model parameters.

A tuning step of the individual algorithm parameters was conducted using the BIOMOD_tuning function of the R package biomod2. The optimised parameters were then used to perform a new modelling analysis.

3) Please review the manuscript figures to make it clearer how well the model prediction matches the data and be more explicit how uncertainty was calculated and represented and include this in the main text when discussing findings.

We have added several supplementary figures, which compare the modelling results with the occurrence of the species as well as the different datasets. An additional figure of the modelling uncertainty has also been attached and addressed in the main text.

Reviewer #1:

I'd like to thank the authors for their detailed responses and additions to this work in regards to the majority of my points raised. I think all but one of these have now been adequately addressed. On point 6 [running models with default parameters only] – I don't think this particular comment has been addressed. Suggesting that such parameters have been "optimised by the biomod2 development team" is not realistic given the breadth of problems that these algorithms are applied to. To take one example, in the documentation for GAMs in the "mgcv" package (that biomod2 calls) there is extensive advice on basis dimension choice for smooths and the explicit statement "The choice of the basis dimension (k in the s, te, ti and t2 terms) is something that should be considered carefully" and a range of model diagnostic statistics and plots are suggested to tune such parameters. This is one example of many and, as a reader, I do not have great confidence in the work if some of these model flexibility parameters are not at least explored. What makes the issue worse is that a reader currently has no way of diagnosing what impact this oversight might have as there are no model coefficients or effects plots presented in the manuscript. I appreciate that this is a common oversight in many ML modelling applications, but even a basic sensitivity analysis would be a big improvement over using the default values.

Based on the valuable suggestions of both reviewers, we decided to rerun the modelling and completely revise the selection of the algorithm parameters. For this purpose, we used the internal function BIOMOD_tuning from the biomod2 package. This function was designed to tune the biomod single models parameters based on the optimisation of the AUC values and returns a ModelingOptions object which can be used for modelling. The following optimised parameters where then used to perform a new modelling approach: (1) a stepwise feature selection with quadratic terms based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to generate the generalised linear models (GLM); (2) generalised boosted models (GBM) were run with a maximum of 5 000 trees to ensure fitting, a minimum number of observations in trees’ terminal nodes of 10 as we have large training datasets, a learning rate of 0.01 and a interaction depth (maximum number of nodes per tree) of 7; (3) for generalised additive models (GAM) a binomial distribution and logit link function was applied, the initial degrees of smoothing was set to 4; (4) the minimum interaction degree of the multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) was set to 2 with the number of terms to retain in the final model set to 17; (5) artificial neuronal networks (ANN) were produced with fivefold cross-validation resulting in 8 units in the hidden layer and a weight decay of 0.001; for the maximum entropy approach (MAXENT) we used linear, quadratic and product features and deactivated threshold and hinge features, the number of iterations was increased to 10 000 (Materials and methods section).

The use of the adjusted parameters did not result in major changes in the modelling output (see Figure 1). It can therefore be assumed that an ensemble forecasting approach with several algorithms produces results that are rather robust against changes in the single algorithm parameters. However, we opted to include the new modelling results in the manuscript since the AUC values were improved by the parameter optimisation indicating a better predictive model performance.

Reviewer #2:

I acknowledge the authors have made substantial improvements to the original version of the manuscript following the reviewers' recommendations. The modifications imply a remarkable change on the original predicted distributions. However, some considerations in terms of the methodology and the presentation of the results remain:

About the data:

My main worry is that the Materials and methods section remains limited in the details and particularly in terms of the data that has been used, which makes very difficult to understand all the work that has been done. I suggest the authors consider adding a sub-section on the Materials and methods section dedicated exclusively to explain where the data come from.

For example, the authors mention as data source the " the 'Atlas of Chagas disease vectors in the Americas' (Carcavallo et al., 1998) which were digitised at a 0.1^o x 0.1^o resolution by Fergnani et al. (2013)". What does exactly "digitised" mean? Is it Fergnani already a modelling work on the Atlas data? What is the difference between Carcavallo and Fergnani data? This becomes even more important as Carcavallo is a book with restricted access so that it is difficult to trace the original source.

This is further confusing later when the authors cite Supplementary file 4 as the occurrence data citing Carcavallo and not Fergnani.

In subsection “Occurrence data” they mention that "In total, 4155 unique occurrence points were collected ranging from 31 for Rhodnius ecuadoriensis to 1180 for Panstrongylus geniculatus (Table 1)." Were these points collected by who, by the authors? This is somehow contradictory to the use of already collected data from Carcavallo/Fergnani.

We have completely revised the subsection “Occurrence data” and explain the collection and processing of the data in more detail. In particular, we discuss the conversion of the distribution maps from the Atlas into point data by Fergnani et al. (2013) (Materials and methods section):

“Occurrence data of the triatomine species were obtained from data provided by Fergnani et al. (2013). […] With the help of the map projection, occurrence points with coordinates were created (Fergnani et al., 2013).”

Furthermore, since both Carcavallo et al. (1998) and Fergnani et al. (2013) are equally relevant for providing the occurrence data, we have decided to always cite both sources.

Further on the same topic, the authors mention on their reply to the reviewers that they have "We carefully compared both datasets and plotted them in ArcGIS. It turned out that the Ceccarelli as well as the GBIF occurrence records are completely covered by the Atlas data". This should be explicitly mentioned in the Materials and methods section and the comparison map added as supplementary information.

Done as suggested. We explicitly mentioned the comparison of the Atlas data and the Ceccarelli and GBIF data in the Materials and methods section, explained the choice of the Atlas dataset (Materials and methods section) and added a set of figures (Supplementary file 6) showing occurrence data from the ‘Atlas of Chagas disease vectors in the Americas’ (Carcavallo et al., 1998), occurrence data from Ceccarelli et al. (2018) and occurrence data from GBIF.org (2019).

Also, the authors mention (subsection “Occurrence data”) that "Additional global occurrences of Triatoma rubrofasciata from an intensive literature search were used". However, in the Materials and methods section there is not mention to the details of the review process followed to obtain such data (which databases, which quality control, which languages, which temporal filter they have used, etc). If the data for Triatoma rubrofasciata is used as data points, how different is the methodology for this species compared to the other species?

The occurrence data for the modelling approach of all species were solely obtained from the ‘Atlas of Chagas disease’ (Carcavallo et al., 1998) and more specifically the publication by Fergnani et al. (2013) which covers only the Americas. Individual records from other sources were not included.

The independent global model validation was only feasible with T.rubrofasciata as it is the only triatomine species with known occurrence data in the Americas and outside the Americas. Therefore, additional sources had to be used as the Atlas provides no records outside of the Americas.

However, we now define both datasets in more detail and describe the collection of the occurrence records of T.rubrofasciata (Materials and methods section).

About the statistical methods:

In subsection “Species distribution modelling”, the authors mention "All algorithms were run with default settings except for MAXENT, GLM and GBM.". In response to a reviewer's comment about what those default setting imply, the authors mention that "We have carefully examined the different parameters and changed the information criteria for the stepwise selection procedure in GLM to 'Akaike Information Criteria (AIC)' and the number of terminal nodes in GBM to 6 as it is recommended by Friedman (2002)". I believe the reasoning behind the "default settings" has not been clarified yet.

We tuned the parameters of the algorithms and reran the models again, with no major changes in the modelled climatic suitability results. However, the AUC values were slightly improved and we decided to include the new modelling results in the manuscript. For a more detailed description, please refer to point 1.

About the Results section and Discussion section:

In Supplementary file 4 there is not needed to show the background colours but simply the distribution of the data. The background does not really help to see the data.

Done as suggested. The background colours of Supplementary file 5 (former Supplementary file 4) have been removed.

Could you please explain why in the Global validation it was possible to estimate sensitivity but not specificity for T. rubrofasciata?

The sensitivity measures the percentage of true positives which means in this case congruence of projected and actual occurrence. The specificity measures the percentage of the correctly identified (true) negatives. However, since it is not possible to determine actual ‘climatic’ absences for a species that is currently spreading to non-endemic areas, the specificity cannot be calculated here.

In the Results section it is mentioned several times some agreements and disagreements between the model and the data for various species. For example, in the Discussion section "the models appear to slightly overestimate the potential distribution as it could be noted in the modelling of T. dimidiate". However, it is actually hard for the reader to note exactly where these potential overestimates are occurring. It will be great if you can have a figure (even if it is a set of figures in Supplementary file) where you show both the model predictions with the occurrence data on top so the reader can judge and understand where the model is fitting well and not that well, as you have done for T. rubrofasciata on Figure 2.

A set of figures was added (Supplementary file 4) depicting the modelling results as well as the occurrence of each species in South America obtained from the ‘Atlas of Chagas disease vectors in the Americas’ (Ceccarelli et al., 1998).

In Figure 1 (and also Figure 2) it is mentioned that "Hatched areas indicate regions where the projection is uncertain". There are two problems with this uncertainty:

- The size of the panels makes the figures so small that it is impossible to actually see the hatched areas.

- What does it mean "uncertain"? It should be clearly explained in the Materials and methods how such uncertainty was estimated. Is there a metric for such uncertainty?

These problems with showing uncertainty in both Figure 1 and Figure 2 could be solved by having other similar figures exclusively for uncertainty.

A short description of the clamping mask (indicated as hatched areas in the figures) was given in the Materials and methods section. However, we have expanded on the explanation and tried to use a clearer vocabulary (Materials and methods section). Additionally, a figure has been added (Supplementary file 7) depicting the areas where the environmental variables are outside their trainings range.

To avoid confusion, I encourage authors to use a more cautious language when referring to climate suitability rather than actual presence of a particular species. For example in subsection “Potential distribution under current climate conditions” they mention "T. brasiliensis prefers dry and wet savannah climate as found in eastern Brazil and southern West Africa, northern and southern Central Africa and East Africa". But, in reality T. brasiliensis hasn't ever been found in Africa.

Done as suggested. We carefully examined the manuscript for inaccuracies and improved them if necessary (e.g. Results section).

Author details

1. Fanny E Eberhard

   1. Goethe University, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Frankfurt, Germany
   2. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   Eberhard@bio.uni-frankfurt.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4947-3867

2. Sarah Cunze

   1. Goethe University, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Frankfurt, Germany
   2. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Judith Kochmann

   1. Goethe University, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Frankfurt, Germany
   2. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt, Germany

   Contribution

   Supervision, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Sven Klimpel

   1. Goethe University, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Frankfurt, Germany
   2. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

• 2,308

  Page views

• 281

  Downloads

• 27

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.