4.5 Article

Spatial Re-Establishment Dynamics of Local Populations of Vectors of Chagas Disease

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 3, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000490

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Science Foundation (NIH/NSF)
  2. Fogarty International Center [R01 TW05836]
  3. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
  4. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (Argentina)
  5. University of Buenos Aires
  6. NIH [R01 TWO5836-01]
  7. NSF [DMS-0443803]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Prevention of Chagas disease depends mainly on control of the insect vectors that transmit infection. Unfortunately, the vectors have been resurgent in some areas. It is important to understand the dynamics of reinfestation where it occurs. Here we show how continuous- and discrete-time models fitted to patch-level infestation states can elucidate different aspects of re-establishment. Triatoma infestans, the main vector of Chagas disease, reinfested sites in three villages in northwest Argentina after community-wide insecticide spraying in October 1992. Methodology/Principal Findings: Different methods of estimating the probabilities of bug establishment on each site were compared. The results confirmed previous results showing a 6-month time lag between detection of a new infestation and dispersal events. The analysis showed that more new bug populations become established from May to November than from November to May. This seasonal increase in bug establishment coincides with a seasonal increase in dispersal distance. In the fitted models, the probability of new bug establishment increases with increasing time since last detected infestation. Conclusions/Significance: These effects of season and previous infestation on bug establishment challenge our current understanding of T. infestans ecology and highlight important gaps in knowledge. Experiments necessary to close these gaps are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据