SACEMA, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Mar 25;15(3):e0009026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009026. eCollection 2021 Mar.
Published analysis of genetic material from field-collected tsetse (Glossina spp, primarily from the Palpalis group) has been used to predict that the distance (δ) dispersed per generation increases as effective population densities (De) decrease, displaying negative density-dependent dispersal (NDDD). Using the published data we show this result is an artefact arising primarily from errors in estimates of S, the area occupied by a subpopulation, and thereby in De. The errors arise from the assumption that S can be estimated as the area ([Formula: see text]) regarded as being covered by traps. We use modelling to show that such errors result in anomalously high correlations between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] and the appearance of NDDD, with a slope of -0.5 for the regressions of log([Formula: see text]) on log([Formula: see text]), even in simulations where we specifically assume density-independent dispersal (DID). A complementary mathematical analysis confirms our findings. Modelling of field results shows, similarly, that the false signal of NDDD can be produced by varying trap deployment patterns. Errors in the estimates of δ in the published analysis were magnified because variation in estimates of S were greater than for all other variables measured, and accounted for the greatest proportion of variation in [Formula: see text]. Errors in census population estimates result from an erroneous understanding of the relationship between trap placement and expected tsetse catch, exacerbated through failure to adjust for variations in trapping intensity, trap performance, and in capture probabilities between geographical situations and between tsetse species. Claims of support in the literature for NDDD are spurious. There is no suggested explanation for how NDDD might have evolved. We reject the NDDD hypothesis and caution that the idea should not be allowed to influence policy on tsetse and trypanosomiasis control.
已发表的对野外采集的采采蝇(主要是棕尾别麻蝇属)遗传物质的分析结果表明,每代的扩散距离(δ)随有效种群密度(De)的降低而增加,表现出负密度依赖性扩散(NDDD)。利用已发表的数据,我们表明,这一结果是由于对 S(亚种群占据的面积)的估计误差造成的,进而导致 De 出现误差。这些误差源于 S 可以通过陷阱覆盖的面积 ([Formula: see text]) 来估计的假设。我们利用模型表明,这种误差会导致 [Formula: see text] 和 [Formula: see text] 之间出现异常高的相关性,以及 NDDD 的出现,回归中 log([Formula: see text]) 对 log([Formula: see text]) 的斜率为-0.5,即使在我们特别假设密度独立扩散(DID)的模拟中也是如此。补充的数学分析也证实了我们的发现。对野外结果的建模表明,陷阱部署模式的变化也会产生 NDDD 的虚假信号。已发表的分析中δ的估计误差被放大了,因为 S 的估计值变化大于所有其他测量变量,并且占 [Formula: see text] 变化的最大比例。在人口普查估计中出现的误差源于对陷阱位置与预期采采蝇捕获量之间关系的错误理解,由于未能调整捕捉强度、陷阱性能以及地理环境和采采蝇物种之间的捕获概率的变化,这种误差加剧了。文献中对 NDDD 的支持是没有根据的。对于 NDDD 是如何进化而来的,目前还没有提出解释。我们拒绝 NDDD 假说,并警告说,不应让这一概念影响到采采蝇和锥虫病控制的政策。