| Literature DB >> 32389450 |
Luigi Sedda1, Benjamín M Taylor2, Alvaro E Eiras3, João Trindade Marques4, Rod J Dillon5.
Abstract
Understanding geographic population dynamics of mosquitoes is an essential requirement for estimating the risk of mosquito-borne disease transmission and geographically targeted interventions. However, the use of population dynamics measures, such as the intrinsic growth rate, as predictors in spatio-temporal point processes has not been investigated before. In this work we compared the predictive accuracy of four spatio-temporal log-Gaussian Cox models: (i) With no predictors; (ii) mosquito abundance as predictor; (iii) intrinsic growth rate as predictor; (iv) intrinsic growth rate and mosquito abundance as predictors. This analysis is based on Aedes aegypti mosquito surveillance and human dengue data obtained from the urban area of Caratinga, Brazil. We used a statistical Moran Curve approach to estimate the intrinsic growth rate and a zero inflated Poisson kriging model for estimating mosquito abundance at locations of dengue cases. The incidence of dengue cases was positively associated with mosquito intrinsic growth rate and this model outperformed, in terms of predictive accuracy, the abundance and the null models. The latter includes only the spatio-temporal random effect but no predictors. In the light of these results we suggest that the intrinsic growth rate should be investigated further as a potential tool for predicting the risk of dengue transmission and targeting health interventions for vector-borne diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Aedes aegypti; Dengue; Density dependent and independent mortalities; Log-Gaussian cox process; Moran curve; Ricker model
Year: 2020 PMID: 32389450 PMCID: PMC7315132 DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2020.105519
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Trop ISSN: 0001-706X Impact factor: 3.112
Fig. 1Study area in the municipality of Caratinga, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Location of the mosquito traps without (green) and with (yellow) catches of Ae. aegypti mosquito during the sampling period (2010–2011). Red triangles show those traps with average annual catches of 1 or more mosquitoes. Traps highlighted with identification number. Numeric monthly catches at each trap are shown in Table A1 in Appendix A. Roads, streams and rivers obtained from OpenStreetMap https://www.openstreetmap.org under CC BY-SA licence. World countries map from Natural Earth, CC BY-SA @ naturalearthdata.com. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 2Graphical explanation of the Moran curve parameters. The density independent mortality at a mosquito log density point (log trap catches) is the difference of the log density values between the line of unlimited growth (which intercept is the unlimited growth λ0) and the log density point; while the density dependent mortality is the difference between the log density values between the line of unlimited growth and the line of density dependent limitation of population growth. When the density dependence is acting (densities > d otherwise density dependence is 0) then the density independent mortality is the difference of log density values between the line of density dependent limitation of population growth and the point. The intensity of density dependent mortality is represented by the slope α.
Intrinsic growth rate modelling. Spatio-temporal Kriging and Moran curve parameters. Uncertainties provided as envelopes for the spatio-temporal covariance parameters, and as standard errors for the Moran curve parameters. *Standardised so that the sum of the nugget and partial sill is equal to 1.
| Parameters | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Envelopes | ||
| 366 | 73,211 | |
| 6.000 | 1,9 | |
| Spatial nugget* | 0.169 | 0,0.51 |
| Spatial partial sill* | 0.831 | 0.5,1 |
| Temporal nugget* | 0.269 | 0,0.62 |
| Temporal partial sill* | 0.731 | 0.3,1 |
| Standard errors | ||
| Air temperature (scaled) | 0.521 | 0.227 |
| Wet bulb temperature (scaled) | −0.625 | 0.226 |
| Relative humidity (scaled) | 0.243 | 0.098 |
| α, density dependence slope (degrees) | 56.29 | 2.37 |
| 0.58 | 0.055 | |
| Standard errors | ||
| λ0, field fertility (unlimited growth) | 1.04 | 1.02 |
Mosquito abundance modelling. Spatio-temporal Kriging and Moran curve parameters for the residuals obtained from the ZIP model described in Eq. (11) and (12). *Standardised so that the sum of the nugget and partial sill is equal to 1.
| Parameters | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Envelopes | ||
| 64.000 | 13,150 | |
| 11.000 | 7,12 | |
| Spatial nugget* | 0.000 | 0,0.1 |
| Spatial partial sill* | 1.000 | 0.9,1 |
| Temporal nugget* | 0.314 | 0,0.45 |
| Temporal partial sill* | 0.686 | 0.55,1 |
| Standard errors | ||
| Intercept | −173.521 | 5.048 |
| Air temperature (scaled) | 1.213 | 0.424 |
| Relative humidity (scaled) | 0.173 | 0.062 |
| Wet bulb temperature (scaled) | −0.907 | 0.458 |
| Atmospheric pressure (scaled) | 0.158 | 0.061 |
Intrinsic growth rate and dengue cases, quantifying the geographic association.
Fig. 3Plot of the estimated Moran Curve for Ae. aegypti caught in 158 traps in Caratinga. Points represent the log abundances (N) at time t (x-axis) and t + 1 (y-axis). Red points are highly frequent abundance combinations (i.e. occurring more than 3 times). See Figure 2 for explanation of the lines.
Summary statistics for the spatio-temporal log-Cox Gaussian process used to model the dengue cases. In parenthesis the 95% credible interval are reported for each parameter.
| Parameter | Model 1: Intercept only | Model 2: Intercept and Abundance | Model 3: Intercept and IGR | Model 4: Intercept, Abundance and IGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 10−8 (1 10−8, 2.2 10−8) | 1.8 10−8 (9 10−9, 3.1 10−8) | 1.6 10−8 (1 10−8, 2.6 10−8) | 1.8 10−8 (9 10−9, 3 10−8) | |
| – | 0.84 (0.18,1.9) | – | 0.99 (0.09,3.9) | |
| – | – | 0.91 (0.33,1.8) | 1.30 (0.25,3.9) | |
| γ | 1.9 (1.3,2.5) | 1.9 (1.4,2.5) | 1.9 (1.4,2.5) | 1.9 (1.4,2.6) |
| Ω | 138 (78,215) | 136 (82,210) | 135 (78,209) | 136 (79,214) |
| 8.1 (4.5,20) | 7.9 (4.5,19) | 7.8 (4.5,18) | 7.6 (4.5,16) | |
| WAIC | 504.43 | 505.34 | 503.88 | 508.12 |
| DIC | 1018.33 | 1013.58 | 976.10 | 958.24 |
Fig. 4Weighted average of predicted dengue cases x 1000 people during the 2011/12 surveillance campaign (left). On the right is shown the equivalent exceedance map, with exceedance threshold of 0.33 × 1000 people. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)