| Literature DB >> 35658961 |
Halfan S Ngowo1,2, Fredros O Okumu3,4,5,6, Emmanuel E Hape3,4, Issa H Mshani3,4, Heather M Ferguson3,4, Jason Matthiopoulos4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is often assumed that the population dynamics of the malaria vector Anopheles funestus, its role in malaria transmission and the way it responds to interventions are similar to the more elaborately characterized Anopheles gambiae. However, An. funestus has several unique ecological features that could generate distinct transmission dynamics and responsiveness to interventions. The objectives of this work were to develop a model which will: (1) reconstruct the population dynamics, survival, and fecundity of wild An. funestus populations in southern Tanzania, (2) quantify impacts of density dependence on the dynamics, and (3) assess seasonal fluctuations in An. funestus demography. Through quantifying the population dynamics of An. funestus, this model will enable analysis of how their stability and response to interventions may differ from that of An. gambiae sensu lato.Entities:
Keywords: Abundance; Anopheles funestus; Density dependence; Population dynamic; Seasonality; State space model
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35658961 PMCID: PMC9166306 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-022-04189-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 3.469
Fig. 1A map depicting the locations of various study villages where mosquito sampling was carried out in 2015–2016 and 2018–2019 (Kindly prepared by Najat Kahamba)
Fig. 2Schematic representation of the state-space population model showing different life stages compartment (circles) and flows (arrows) of Anopheles funestus. Abundance data were only available for unfed, blood-fed and gravid stages. The model assumes that once a gravid mosquito has laid eggs, they return to the unfed stage. The annotations are described in Table 1. The model incorporates six life stages (eggs, larvae, pupae, unfed, bloodfed and gravid) of An. funestus
Priors as used in the state-space population models of Anopheles funestus and the estimated posteriors mean and 95% credible intervals
| Parameter | Prior distribution | Posterior distribution | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notation | Description | Type | Source | Mean | 95-percentiles | Mean | 95-percentiles |
| Eggs daily survival rate | Beta | This study | 0.794 | [0.619, 1] | 0.789 | [0.776, 0.804] | |
| Eggs development period | Beta | This study | 0.5 | [0.4, 0.6] | 0.499 | [0.485, 0.514] | |
| Baseline larval daily survival | Beta | This study | 0.923 | [0.801, 1] | 0.950 | [0.943, 0.956] | |
| Baseline larval development period | Beta | This study | 0.063 | [0.055, 0.071] | 0.063 | [0.062, 0.064] | |
| Pupae daily survival rate | Beta | This study | 0.941 | [0.874, 1] | 0.944 | [0.930, 0.950] | |
| Pupae development period | Beta | This study | 0.522 | [0.253, 0.792] | 0.525 | [0.506, 0.546] | |
| Baseline unfed daily survival | Beta | This study | 0.935 | [0.877, 0.992] | 0.937 | [0.933, 0.941] | |
| Unfed development period | Beta | This study | 0.20 | [0.19, 0.21] | 0.200 | [0.198, 0.201] | |
| Baseline blood-fed daily survival | Beta | This study | 0.807 | [0.654, 0.961] | 0.810 | [0.799, 0.820] | |
| Blood-fed daily transition rate | Beta | This study | 0.25 | [0.05, 045] | 0.269 | [0.256, 0.280] | |
| Baseline gravid daily survival | Beta | This study | 0.904 | [0.848, 0.961] | 0.903 | [0.899, 0.907] | |
| Gravid daily transition rate | Beta | This study | 0.333 | [0.133, 0.533] | 0.311 | [0.297, 0.324] | |
| No. eggs/female (Per capita fecundity) | Beta | This study | 80 | [60, 100] | 78 | [ | |
| Coefficient of variability | Beta | Uninformative prior | 0.5 | [0.1, 0.9] | 0.79 | [0.810, 0.825] | |
| Coefficient of “Trap biasness” for the blood-fed | Beta | Msugupakyula et al. [ | 0.1 | [0.05, 0.15] | 0.122 | [0.117, 0.127] | |
| Coefficient of “Trap biasness” for the gravid | 0.505* | [0.025,0.076] | 0.062 | [0.059, 0.064] | |||
Refers to an interaction between 1-week cumulative rainfall and density dependency
Priors for the intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of the population dynamic as used in the state-space model of Anopheles funestus and the estimated posteriors mean and 95% credible intervals
| Parameter | Prior distribution | Posterior distribution | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notation | Description | Type | Source | Mean | sd | Mean | 95-percentiles |
| Linear coefficient for rainfall on larvae survival | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.01681 | [0.00604, 0.0308] | |
| Density dependent coefficient for larvae on larvae survival | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0283e−4 | [1.0e−4, 1.1205e−4] | |
| Coefficient of interaction between larvae and rainfall on larvae survival | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.9601 | [0.80810, 0.99999] | |
| Linear coefficient for temperature on larvae survival | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 1 | 0.316 | 0.487 | [0.203, 0.806] | |
| Quadratic coefficient for temperature on larvae survival | A function of | − 0.00902 | [− 0.01492, − 0.00376] | ||||
| Linear coefficient for temperature on larvae development period | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 0.001 | 0.001 | 5.362e−4 | [2.51e−8, 2.311e−3] | |
| Linear coefficient for temperature on unfed, survival | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 1 | 0.316 | 0.074 | [0.068, 0.081] | |
| Quadratic coefficient for temperature on unfed survival | Gamma | A function of | − 1.378e−3 | [− 1.50e−3, − 1.26e-3] | |||
| Linear coefficient for temperature on bloodfed survival | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 1 | 0.316 | 0.074 | [0.068, 0.081] | |
| Quadratic coefficient for temperature on bloodfed survival | Gamma | A function of | − 1.378e−3 | [− 1.50e−3, − 1.26e-3] | |||
| Linear coefficient for temperature on gravid survival | Gamma | Uninformative prior | 1 | 0.316 | 0.074 | [0.068, 0.081] | |
| Quadratic coefficient for temperature on gravid survival | Gamma | A function of | − 1.378e−3 | [− 1.50e−3, − 1.26e−3] | |||
Model selection: Description of all models fitted with and without environmental covariates and their corresponding delta-Deviance Information Criterion ΔDIC
| Model | Removed covariate(s) | Fitness measure | Penalized deviance (pD)/DIC | ΔpD/DIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1-Full | None | 35,500 | 25,339 | |
| Model 2 | Temperature | Larval survival | 10,555 | 394 |
| Model 3 | Rainfall | Larval survival | 10,277 | 116 |
| Model 4 | 1 week cumulative rainfall*density dependency | Larval survival | 11,886 | 1725 |
| Model 5 | Density dependency | Larval survival | 11,011 | 850 |
| Model 6 | Temperature | Larval development period | 10,873 | 712 |
| Model 7a | Temperature | Adult survival | 10,161 | 0 |
| Model 8 | Model 7—temperature | Larval survival | 10,299 | 138 |
| Model 9 | Model 7—rainfall | Larval survival | 15,766 | 5605 |
| Model 10 | Model 7—1 week rainfall:density dependency | Larval survival | 10,199 | 38 |
| Model 11 | Model 7—density dependency | Larval survival | 10,383 | 222 |
| Model 12 | Model 7—Temperature | Larval development | 10,497 | 336 |
Model 8–12 consists of model-7 minus one more environmental covariate. Model 4 involved the removal of the interaction term
aThe best model (lowest DIC/Penalized Deviance) value-model-7 followed by model-10, * Interaction between 1 week cumulative rainfall and density dependency
Fig. 3Reconstruction of the abundance trajectories for all the six life-stages. The red line indicates the mean posterior values and the respective 95% confidence intervals are shown in “sky-blue”. Left column (a, c, e, g, i, k) is data collected from June 2018 to May 2019 and right column (b, d, f, h, j, l) is data collected from Jan-Dec 2015. The grey area indicates the period with rainfall
Fig. 4Observed vs. model estimated values for the three adult stages with data collected using CDC light trap both in May 2018 –June 2019 (left column- a, c, d) and Jan-Dec 2015 (right column- b, d, e). Red lines are the model estimated trajectories with “sky-blue” showing their 95% credible intervals. The blue circles are the observed values from the Light trap catches. Grey areas are the periods with rainfalls episodes
Fig. 5Reconstruction of the survival trajectories for all the four stages (larvae, unfed, bloodfed, and gravid) which were affected by the environmental covariates. The two bottom rows show the larval development period and fecundity trends. Left column (a, c, e, g, i, k) is trajectories from June 2018 to May 2019 and right column (b, d, f, h, j, l) is from Jan-Dec 2015. Grey area is the period with rainfall. Y-axis shows the survival rates of different life stages and the bottom row (k, l) shows per-capita fecundity
Fig. 6Relationship between environmental covariates and fitness parameters as estimated from the SSMs of population dynamic of Anopheles funestus