Implicit versus explicit vector management strategies in models for vector-borne disease epidemiology.

Abstract

Throughout the vector-borne disease modeling literature, there exist two general frameworks for incorporating vector management strategies (e.g. area-wide adulticide spraying and larval source reduction campaigns) into vector population models, namely, the "implicit" and "explicit" control frameworks. The more simplistic "implicit" framework facilitates derivation of mathematically rigorous results on disease suppression and optimal control, but the biological connection of these results to real-world "explicit" control actions that could guide specific management actions is vague at best. Here, we formally define a biological and mathematical relationship between implicit and explicit control, and we provide mathematical expressions relating the strength of implicit control to management-relevant properties of explicit control for four common intervention strategies. These expressions allow the optimal control and basic reproduction number analyses typically utilized in implicit control modeling to be interpreted directly in terms of real-world actions and real-world monetary costs. Our methods reveal that only certain sub-classes of explicit control protocols are able to be represented as implicit controls, and that implicit control is a meaningful approximation of explicit control only when resonance-like synergistic effects between multiple explicit controls have negligible effects on population reduction. When non-negligible synergy exists, implicit control results, despite their mathematical tidiness, fail to provide accurate predictions regarding vector control and disease spread. Collectively, these elements build an effective bridge between analytically interesting and mathematically tractable implicit control and the challenging, action-oriented explicit control.