| Literature DB >> 31352885 |
Matthew J Silk1,2, David J Hodgson1, Carly Rozins1,3, Darren P Croft4, Richard J Delahay5, Mike Boots1,3, Robbie A McDonald2.
Abstract
The emergence and spread of infections can contribute to the decline and extinction of populations, particularly in conjunction with anthropogenic environmental change. The importance of heterogeneity in processes of transmission, resistance and tolerance is increasingly well understood in theory, but empirical studies that consider both the demographic and behavioural implications of infection are scarce. Non-random mixing of host individuals can impact the demographic thresholds that determine the amplification or attenuation of disease prevalence. Risk assessment and management of disease in threatened wildlife populations must therefore consider not just host density, but also the social structure of host populations. Here we integrate the most recent developments in epidemiological research from a demographic and social network perspective, and synthesize the latest developments in social network modelling for wildlife disease, to explore their applications to disease management in populations in decline and at risk of extinction. We use simulated examples to support our key points and reveal how disease-management strategies can and should exploit both behavioural and demographic information to prevent or control the spread of disease. Our synthesis highlights the importance of considering the combined impacts of demographic and behavioural processes in epidemics to successful disease management in a conservation context. This article is part of the theme issue 'Linking behaviour to dynamics of populations and communities: application of novel approaches in behavioural ecology to conservation'.Entities:
Keywords: conservation; density-dependence; disease-induced extinction; frequency-dependent; multilayer network; social network
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31352885 PMCID: PMC6710568 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8436 Impact factor: 6.237
Figure 1.A comparison of the impact of infectious disease in two simulated small populations with different contact network structures (electronic supplementary material, 1.1 and 2). The networks of (a) population A and (b) population B have a similar edge density (proportion of dyads that are connected) but those in population A are considerably more modular. This results in considerable differences in the consequences of an epidemic in these populations, with (c) the surviving population after 300 model time-steps differing substantially between the two populations for pathogens with intermediate transmissibility. Points show results from 50 repeat simulations at each transmission probability and the lines connect the mean size of the surviving population for each population.
Figure 2.Multilayer representations of animal socio-spatial networks that may be applied to study disease transmission: (a) a network-of-networks that combines within patch social networks with between patch movement networks, (b) an interconnected network that combines intraspecific (within layer) and interspecific (between layer) interactions to describe potential transmission routes in a multi-host system, (c) an interconnected network that can integrate direct and indirect transmission in a multi-host system, and (d) a multiplex network that can combine transmission dynamics of different pathogens within the same model. These networks simply represent social interactions that may represent transmission opportunities, but this approach could be extended to transmission networks if the data were available.
Figure 3.The effect of changes to pathogen-induced host mortality and changes to host social structure on (a) disease prevalence and (b) host population size in the SIR network model of an endemic infection presented in the electronic supplementary material, 1.2 (see box 1). The four scenarios presented are: no change (grey), increased pathogen-induced mortality (blue), increased social connectivity (fawn) and combined changes to mortality and host social structure (red). Lines represent the mean value at each time-step for each combination of the parameters and points show values from each of the first 25 simulation runs at time-steps 100, 200, 300 and 400. Points for the four scenarios are jittered on the x-axis for clarity. Increasing social connectivity has the greatest impact on host population size in this example because it maintains high pathogen prevalence.
Outcomes of different changes to host–pathogen dynamics in our example model.
| treatment | mean host population size after 200 time-steps (±s.e.) | mean prevalence after 200 time-steps (±s.e.) | mean host population size after 400 time-steps (±s.e.) | mean prevalence after 400 time-steps (±s.e.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| control | 69 ± 2.3 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 62 ± 2.7 | 0.19 ± 0.02 |
| virulence change | 63 ± 1.9 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 61 ± 2.6 | 0.01 ± 0.003 |
| behaviour change | 64 ± 2.1 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 50 ± 2.1 | 0.25 ± 0.03 |
| virulence and behaviour change | 59 ± 1.8 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 58 ± 2.7 | 0.03 ± 0.01 |
Figure 4.The effect of different vaccination programmes on (a) disease prevalence and (b) host population size in the SIR network model presented in the electronic supplementary material, 1.3 (see box 2). The four scenarios presented are: no vaccination (grey), random vaccination (blue), vaccination targeted at individuals with high degree (fawn) and vaccination targeted at individuals with high betweenness (red). In all programmes 20% of individuals are vaccinated and vaccine efficacy is assumed to be 100%. Lines represent the mean value at each time-step for each scenario and points show values from each of the first 25 simulation runs at time-steps 20, 40, 60 and 80. Points for the four scenarios are jittered on the x-axis for clarity. In this scenario, vaccinating 20% of the population is effective in reducing prevalence and maintaining a larger host population size and targeting vaccination at individuals with high betweenness is the most effective intervention.
Outcomes of different vaccination programmes in our example model.
| treatment | mean host population size after 40 time-steps (±s.e.) | mean prevalence after 40 time-steps (±s.e.) | mean host population size after 80 time-steps (±s.e.) | mean prevalence after 80 time-steps (±s.e.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| control | 81 ± 1.8 | 0.103 ± 0.016 | 67 ± 3.2 | 0.063 ± 0.012 |
| random | 86 ± 1.7 | 0.050 ± 0.008 | 79 ± 2.5 | 0.015 ± 0.004 |
| degree-targeted | 86 ± 1.4 | 0.039 ± 0.007 | 80 ± 2.0 | 0.015 ± 0.005 |
| betweenness-targeted | 91 ± 1.2 | 0.027 ± 0.006 | 86 ± 2.1 | 0.011 ± 0.003 |