
Mealybugs cause mechanical damage and diseases to plants. Through their feeding activities, they reduce the yield, quality and productivity of crops. This review discusses mealybug vectors of plant viruses, the economic losses they cause, mealybug species and their hosts. Among the numerous mealybug species, Planococcus species are the most effective vector of plant viruses, transmitting many Ampeloviruses. Diverse methods for the control and regulation of mealybugs are also discussed. Physical, cultural and biological control methods are labor-intensive but environmentally friendly compared to chemical methods. However, chlorpyrifos are one the active ingredients of insecticides effective against several mealybug species. Using plant products such as neem oil as a biocontrol method has been effective, similar to other insecticides. Notwithstanding, the biological method of controlling mealybugs is effectively slow but safe and highly recommended. The Anagyrus species have the highest success rate amongst other natural parasites of mealybugs. Also, farm sanitation and pruning as cultural methods help reduce mealybug populations.
Citation: Abdul Razak Ahmed, Samuel Obeng Apori, Abdul Aziz Karim. Mealybug vectors: A review of their transmission of plant viruses and their management strategies[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 736-761. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023040
[1] | Fabio Sanchez, Luis A. Barboza, Paola Vásquez . Parameter estimates of the 2016-2017 Zika outbreak in Costa Rica: An Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2738-2755. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019136 |
[2] | Hai-Feng Huo, Tian Fu, Hong Xiang . Dynamics and optimal control of a Zika model with sexual and vertical transmissions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8279-8304. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023361 |
[3] | Minna Shao, Hongyong Zhao . Dynamics and optimal control of a stochastic Zika virus model with spatial diffusion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 17520-17553. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023778 |
[4] | Yanfeng Liang, David Greenhalgh . Estimation of the expected number of cases of microcephaly in Brazil as a result of Zika. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 8217-8242. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019416 |
[5] | Maghnia Hamou Maamar, Matthias Ehrhardt, Louiza Tabharit . A nonstandard finite difference scheme for a time-fractional model of Zika virus transmission. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 924-962. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024039 |
[6] | Vanessa Steindorf, Sergio Oliva, Jianhong Wu . Cross immunity protection and antibody-dependent enhancement in a distributed delay dynamic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 2950-2984. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022136 |
[7] | Eunha Shim . Optimal dengue vaccination strategies of seropositive individuals. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1171-1189. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019056 |
[8] | Bo Zheng, Wenliang Guo, Linchao Hu, Mugen Huang, Jianshe Yu . Complex wolbachia infection dynamics in mosquitoes with imperfect maternal transmission. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(2): 523-541. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018024 |
[9] | Haitao Song, Dan Tian, Chunhua Shan . Modeling the effect of temperature on dengue virus transmission with periodic delay differential equations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 4147-4164. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020230 |
[10] | Andrea Pugliese, Abba B. Gumel, Fabio A. Milner, Jorge X. Velasco-Hernandez . Sex-biased prevalence in infections with heterosexual, direct, and vector-mediated transmission: a theoretical analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(1): 125-140. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018005 |
Mealybugs cause mechanical damage and diseases to plants. Through their feeding activities, they reduce the yield, quality and productivity of crops. This review discusses mealybug vectors of plant viruses, the economic losses they cause, mealybug species and their hosts. Among the numerous mealybug species, Planococcus species are the most effective vector of plant viruses, transmitting many Ampeloviruses. Diverse methods for the control and regulation of mealybugs are also discussed. Physical, cultural and biological control methods are labor-intensive but environmentally friendly compared to chemical methods. However, chlorpyrifos are one the active ingredients of insecticides effective against several mealybug species. Using plant products such as neem oil as a biocontrol method has been effective, similar to other insecticides. Notwithstanding, the biological method of controlling mealybugs is effectively slow but safe and highly recommended. The Anagyrus species have the highest success rate amongst other natural parasites of mealybugs. Also, farm sanitation and pruning as cultural methods help reduce mealybug populations.
Dengue is a vector-borne disease recognized as the major arbovirus in the world with approximately 500,000 dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) cases and 22,000 deaths [1,2,3]. Today, more than a third of the world's population lives in countries where dengue is endemic [4], with the dengue belt covering Central America, most of South America, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and South East Asia. Zika virus (ZIKV), a member of the Flavivirus family, was first isolated in Uganda in 1947 [5]. The first documented Zika outbreak occurred on Yap Island in the North Pacific in 2007 [6]. During 2013, a large-scale Zika outbreak was reported in French Polynesia [7]. After being spread to Brazil in 2015 [8], ZIKV was subsequently spread to other countries and territories, with more than 70 countries and territories being reported evidence of ZIKV transmission since 2007 by the end of January, 2017 [9].
Dengue can be transmitted to humans by one bite of the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with one of four closely related dengue serotypes [2,10]. ZIKV is also primarily transmitted by the same mosquito species. However, ZIKV has been isolated in serum, saliva, urine, and semen [11,12,13,14], confirming the possibility of non-vector transmission (through sexual contact). The first case of ZIKV transmission via sexual contact of female to male was reported in July, 2016 [15]. Subsequently, six more cases of sexual transmission of ZIKV in the U.S. and the first case in France were diagnosed [16]. Many mathematical modelling studies [17,18,19,16,20,21,22,23,24,25,26] have investigated the impact of sexual transmission on the epidemiology of Zika, with a conclusion that Zika sexual transmission can influence the magnitude of Zika outbreaks. In 2016, Gao et al. pioneered the modelling based estimation of the impact of sexual transmission on Zika epidemiology [16]. Similarly, by assessing the basic reproduction number, the study [25] evaluated the relative role of sexual transmission. In [24], a mathematical model was conducted to quantify the Zika prevalence between a source region to an import region. Furthermore, the modelling study [27] pointed out that the risk of sustained sexual transmission of Zika is underestimated, which strongly support that Zika should be classified as sexually transmitted infection.
Since cocirculation and particularly coinfection of dengue and Zika have been documented [28,29,30], it is natural to ask how Zika sexual transmission impacts the Zika transmission dynamics, and further how it affects the dengue transmission dynamics. Our main objective of this study is to address this issue through a mathematical model. Previously, we developed a mathematical model of co-infection of dengue and Zika with a particular focus on the potential impact of vaccination against dengue for Zika outbreak [31]. In our current work, we extend the dengue-Zika coinfection dynamic model by incorporating the natural birth and death of humans. We further expand it by including the Zika sexual transmission routes among humans. To our best knowledge, our work here is the first attempt to develop a mathematical model to address how Zika sexual transmission affects the dynamics of both Zika and dengue.
The manuscript is organized as follows. In the next section, we first develop a dengue-Zika coinfection model involving the sexual transmission of Zika among humans. In section 3, we analyse the dynamics of the proposed model, including the global dynamics of the two submodels with only one disease being considered. In section 4, we discuss the impact of Zika sexual transmission on dengue endemic through cascade effect analysis. We then investigate how Zika sexual transmission affects the transmission dynamics of both dengue and Zika through numerical simulations in section 5. Finally, we make some concluding remarks and discussion in section 6.
Mosquito population Nm is divided into four classes: susceptible (Sm), infected with dengue only (Imd), infected with Zika only (Imz), and infected with dengue and Zika (Imdz). We use a SI-type of structure for the coinfection of dengue and Zika in mosquito population. Thus the model for mosquitoes is given by
{dSmdt=Λm−c(ηdId+ηzIz+ηdzIdz+ηjzJzd+ηjdJdz)SmNh−μmSm,dImddt=c(ηdId+qηdzIdz+ηjdJdz)SmNh−c(η1zIz+η1dzIdz+η1jzJzd)ImdNh−μmImd,dImzdt=c(ηzIz+(1−q)ηdzIdz+ηjzJzd)SmNh−c(η1dId+η1zdIdz+η1jdJdz)ImzNh−μmImz,dImdzdt=c(η1zIz+η1dzIdz+η1jzJzd)ImdNh+c(η1dId+η1zdIdz+η1jdJdz)ImzNh−μmImdz. | (2.1) |
Human population is stratified into: susceptible to dengue and Zika (S), dengue infected but susceptible to Zika (Id), Zika infected but susceptible to dengue (Iz), dengue and Zika co-infected (Idz), recovered from dengue and susceptible to Zika (Rd), recovered from Zika and susceptible to dengue (Rz), Zika infected but immune to dengue (Jzd), dengue infected but immune to Zika (Jdz), recovered from both dengue and Zika (Rdz). Nh=S+Id+Iz+Idz+Rd+Rz+Jzd+Jdz+Rdz denotes the total number of humans.
We assume a SIR-type model for the co-infection of dengue and Zika among humans, which gives
{dSdt=Λh−c(βdImd+βzImz+βdzImdz)SNh−βs(Iz+as1Idz+as2Jzd)SNh−μhS,dIddt=c(βdImd+pβdzImdz)SNh−β1s(Iz+a1Idz+a2Jzd)IdNh−c(β1zImz+β1dzImdz)IdNh−(γd+μh)Id,dIzdt=c(βzImz+(1−p)βdzImdz)SNh+βs(Iz+as1Idz+as2Jzd)SNh−c(β1dImd+β1zdImdz)IzNh−(γz+μh)Iz,dIdzdt=β1s(Iz+a1Idz+a2Jzd)IdNh+c(β1dImd+β1zdImdz)IzNh+c(β1zImz+β1dzImdz)IdNh−γddzIdz−γzdzIdz−μhIdz,dRddt=γdId−βrs(Iz+ar1Idz+ar2Jzd)RdNh−c(βrzImz+βrdzImdz)RdNh−μhRd,dRzdt=γzIz−c(βrdImd+βrzdImdz)RzNh−μhRz,dJzddt=βrs(Iz+ar1Idz+ar2Jzd)RdNh+c(βrzImz+βrdzImdz)RdNh−γzdJzd+γddzIdz−μhJzd,dJdzdt=c(βrdImd+βrzdImdz)RzNh−γdzJdz+γzdzIdz−μhJdz,dRdzdt=γzdJzd+γdzJdz−μhRdz. | (2.2) |
Here, βs is the sexual transmission coefficient from humans infected with Zika only (Iz) to humans who are susceptible to both viruses (S), as1 and as2 denote the relative human-to-human sexual transmissibility of humans infected with both virus (Idz) and humans with Zika infection but dengue immune (Jzd), respectively, compared with the humans infected with Zika only (Iz). Similarly, β1s is the sexual transmission coefficient from humans with Zika only (Iz) to human with dengue only (Id), with a1 and a2 being the relative human-to-human transmissibility corresponding to Idz and Jzd, respectively. βrs represents the sexual transmission coefficient from humans with Zika only (Iz) to humans recovered from dengue but susceptible to Zika (Rd), with ar1 and ar2 being the relative human-to-human transmissibility of Idz and Jzd, respectively. Λh is the constant birth rate of humans, μh is the mortality rate of humans while 1/μh can be seen as the life span of sexual activity for humans [19]. The transmission diagram is shown in Figure 1. The definitions of the variables are listed in Table 1 while the definitions and values for the other parameters of model (2.1)–(2.2) can refer to Table 2.
Variables | Definitions |
Sm | Susceptible mosquitoes |
Imd | Mosquitoes infected with dengue only |
Imz | Mosquitoes infected with Zika only |
Imdz | Mosquitoes infected with dengue and Zika |
Nh | Total number of humans |
S | Humans susceptible to dengue and Zika |
Id | Humans infected with dengue but susceptible to Zika |
Iz | Humans infected with Zika but susceptible to dengue |
Idz | Humans infected with both dengue and Zika |
Rd | Humans recovered from dengue and susceptible to Zika |
Rz | Humans recovered from Zika and susceptible to dengue |
Jzd | Humans recovered from dengue but infected with Zika |
Jdz | Humans recovered from Zika but infected with dengue |
Rdz | Humans recovered from both dengue and Zika |
Definitions | Value(range) | Reference | |
μh | Human mortality rate | 0.00014[118×365,150×365] | [19] |
Λm | Mosquito recruitment rate | 600[400,5000] | [33] |
μm | Mosquito mortality rate | 0.1[0.028,0.25] | [33,16] |
c | Mosquito biting rate | 0.7[0.3,1] | [33,16] |
βd (β1d) | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for dengue | 0.15[0.125,0.385] | [33,16] |
βz (β1z) | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for Zika | 0.15[0.125,0.385] | [33,16] |
βdz | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for both | 0.15[0.03,0.75] | [33,16] |
βrd(βrz) | Dengue transmission probability from Imd(Imz) to Iz(Id) | κβd(βz) | Assumed |
β1zd(β1dz) | Dengue(Zika) transmission probability from Imdz to Iz(Id) | pβdz((1−p)βdz) | Assumed |
βrzd(βrdz) | Dengue(Zika) transmission probability from Imdz to Rz(Rd) | κpβdz((1−p)βdz) | Assumed |
ηd(η1d,η1zd,ηjd,η1jd) | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of dengue | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
ηz(η1z,η1dz,ηjz,η1jz) | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of Zika | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
ηdz | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of both | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
γd(γddz,γdz) | Recovery rate of humans infected with dengue | 0.1[0.017,0.33] | [33] |
γz(γzdz,γzd) | Recovery rate of humans infected with Zika | 0.1[0.1,0.2] | [16] |
κ | Antibody dependent enhancement factor of the susceptibility of dengue | Varied [1,3] | [34,35,36] |
p | Probability of dengue infection when S is infected with Imdz | 0.5(0, 1) | Assumed |
q | Probability of dengue infection when Sm is infected with Idz | 0.5(0, 1) | Assumed |
βs(β1s/βrs) | Sexual transmission coefficient of Zika from Iz to S(Id/Rd) | Varied [0, 1] | Assumed |
as1(a1/ar1) | Relative sexual transmissibility of Idz to S(Id/Rd) compared with Iz | 1 | Assumed |
as2(a2/ar2) | Relative sexual transmissibility of Jzd to S(Id/Rd) compared with Iz | 1 | Assumed |
Λh | Human recruitment rate | 2.2 | Assumed |
In this section, we mainly discuss the existence and stability of the disease-free equilibria for system (2.1)–(2.2). Define
D={(S,Id,Iz,Idz,Rd,Rz,Jzd,Jdz,Rdz,Sm,Imd,Imz,Imdz)∈R13+| 0<S+Id+Iz+Idz+Rd+Rz+Jzd+Jdz+Rdz≤Λhμh, 0<Sm+Imd+Imz+Imdz≤Λmμm}. |
Obviously, D is a positively invariant and attracting region in R13+ for system (2.1)–(2.2).
It is easy to see that system (2.1)–(2.2) has a disease-free equilibrium, which is given
E0=(Λhμh,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,Λmμm,0,0,0). |
Using the next generation matrix method introduced in papers [37,38], the basic reproduction number for system (2.1)–(2.2) is calculated as R0=max{Rd,Rsz} (see Appendix A for more details), where
Rd=√cβdμmcηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh,Rsz=Rs+√Rs2+4Rz22=βs2(γz+μh)+√β2s4(γz+μh)2+cβzμmcηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh | (3.1) |
are the dengue basic reproduction number and the Zika basic reproduction number, respectively. Here
Rs=βsγz+μh, Rz=√cβzμmcηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh | (3.2) |
are the basic reproduction numbers of sexual transmission and vectorial transmission for Zika, respectively. In summary, we have established
Theorem 3.1. The disease-free equilibrium E0 is locally asymptotically stable if R0<1 and unstable if R0>1.
Next, we will have an insight into the dynamics of the disease-free equilibrium if only one disease circulates among humans and mosquitoes. Firstly, we assume that only dengue occurs, then system (2.1)–(2.2) can be simplified to the following subsystem
{dSdt=Λh−cβdImdSNh−μhS,dIddt=cβdImdSNh−(γd+μh)Id,dSmdt=Λm−cηdIdSmNh−μmSm,dImddt=cηdIdSmNh−μmImd. | (3.3) |
For system (3.3), D1={(S,Id,Sm,Imd)∈R4+|0<S+Id≤Λhμh,0<Sm+Imd≤Λmμm} is a positively invariant and attracting region in R4+. Correspondingly, the disease-free equilibrium reduces to Ed0=(Λhμh,0,Λmμm,0), which is locally asymptotically stable when Rd<1 with Rd being given in equation (3.1). Note that Rd is also the basic reproduction number of model (3.3) [32,39]. In fact, Rd<1 can ensure that Ed0 is globally stable, that is,
Theorem 3.2. If Rd<1, the disease-free equilibrium Ed0 of system (3.3) is globally asymptotically stable in D1.
Note that, the similar models of dengue have been studied in [40,32]. We can use the same methods in these two studies to prove Theorem 3.2 (see Appendix B for details).
Performing the similar process by assuming that only Zika circulates among the humans and mosquitoes, system (2.1)–(2.2) becomes
{dSdt=Λh−cβzImzSNh−βsIzSNh−μhS,dIzdt=cβzImzSNh+βsIzSNh−(γz+μh)Iz,dSmdt=Λm−cηzIzSmNh−μmSm,dImzdt=cηzIzSmNh−μmImz. | (3.4) |
The positively invariant and attracting region should now be defined as D2={(S,Iz,Sm,Imz)∈R4+|0<S+Iz≤Λhμh,0<Sm+Imz≤Λmμm} in R4+. Also, system (3.4) has a disease-free equilibrium Ez0=(Λhμh,0,Λmμm,0). It is locally asymptotically stable if Rsz<1 and unstable if Rsz>1, here, Rsz is the basic reproduction number of system (3.4) with the formula being given in equation (3.1). The global dynamics of Ez0 can be concluded as in the following.
Theorem 3.3. If Rsz<1, the disease-free equilibrium Ez0 of system (3.4) is globally asymptotically stable in D2.
Proof. Similar to Theorem 3.2, if Rsz<1, there must exist an ε2>0 such that cηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh11−βsγz+μh<ε2<μmcβz. We introduce a function L2=ε2Iz+Imz, which satisfies L2≥0 along the solution of system (3.4) with L2=0 if and only if both Iz and Imz are zero. The derivative of L2 along the solution of system (3.4) satisfies
L′2=ε2cβzImzSNh+ε2βsIzSNh−ε2(γz+μh)Iz+cηzIzSmNh−μmImz ≤cβz(ε2−μmcβz)Imz+(γz+μh)(1−Rs)(cηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh11−βsγz+μh−ε2)Iz ≤0, |
since SNh≤1 and Sm≤Λmμm hold true in D2 and the assumptions Rs<1, cηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh11−βsγz+μh<ε2<μmcβz are satisfied. Further, L′2=0 if and only if Iz=0 and Imz=0. Therefore, according to the LaSalle's Invariance Principle, we have that Ez0 is globally asymptotically stable in D2.
In this section, we will illustrate how the Zika sexual transmission can first lead to Zika endemic, and then lead to dengue endemic through cascade effect analysis. The endemic equilibrium of Zika only model Ez(ˆS,ˆIz,ˆRz,ˆSm,ˆImz) satisfies the following conditions:
{Λh−cβzˆImzˆSNh−βsˆIzˆSNh−μhˆS=0,cβzˆImzˆSNh+βsˆIzˆSNh−(γz+μh)ˆIz=0,γzˆIz−μhˆRz=0,Λm−cηzˆSmNhˆIz−μmˆSm=0,cηzˆSmNhˆIz−μmˆImz=0. |
Solving the above equations, there are
ˆSm=ΛmNhcηzˆIz+μmNh, ˆImz=cηzΛmˆIzμm(cηzˆIz+μmNh),ˆRz=γzμzˆIz, ˆS=μmNh(γz+μh)(cηzˆIz+μmNh)cβzcηzΛm+μmβs(cηzˆIz+μmNh), |
where ˆIz is the positive root of the following equation
f(Iz)≐RsIz2+[A(Rs+Rz2)+B(1−Rs)]Iz+AB(1−Rs−Rz2)=0 |
with A=μmΛhcηzμh>0, B=Λhγz+μh>0 and Rs, Rz being given in (3.2).
Denote Δ=[A(Rs+Rz2)+B(1−Rs)]2−4ABRs(1−Rs−Rz2), then
Δ=[A(Rs+Rz2)−B(1−Rs)]2+4ABRsRz2>0. |
Through some straightforward analysis, we find that f(Iz)=0 has only one positive root given by
ˆIz=−A(Rs+Rz2)−B(1−Rs)+√Δ2Rs |
if and only if 1−Rs−Rz2<0 which is equivalent to Rsz>1. That is, the endemic equilibrium of Zika only model exits if and only if Rsz>1. Therefore, Zika can become endemic by including the sexual transmission because Rsz is increasing as βs increases, for the area that the vectorial transmission only can not (i.e. Rz<1).
We then consider the transmission dynamics of dengue after Zika reaching its endemic state. That is, we assume that only dengue circulates among humans and mosquitoes and ignore all the Zika transmission, but we set the initial conditions as the Zika endemic state. Then system (2.1)–(2.2) can be reduced to the following model:
{dSdt=Λh−cβdImdSNh−μhS,dIddt=cβdImdSNh+cβ1dImdIzNh−(γd+μh)Id,dIzdt=−cβ1dImdIzNh−(γz+μh)Iz,dRddt=γdId−μhRd,dRzdt=−cβrdImdRzNh−μhRz,dJdzdt=cβrdImdRzNh−γdzJdz−μhJdz,dRdzdt=γdzJdz−μhRdz.dSmdt=Λm−c(ηdId+ηjdJdz)SmNh−μmSm,dImddt=c(ηdId+ηjdJdz)SmNh+c(η1dId+η1jdJdz)ImzNh−μmImd,dImzdt=−c(η1dId+η1jdJdz)ImzNh−μmImz. | (4.1) |
Note that, now the disease-free equilibrium of dengue should be E∗d(ˆS,0,ˆIz,0,ˆRz,0,0,ˆSm,0,ˆImz).
In order to investigate the stability of E∗d, we also use the next generation operator. Thus, we just need to consider the compartments Id, Jdz and Imd with
F=(cβdImdSNh+cβ1dImdIzNhcβrdImdRzNhc(ηdId+ηjdJdz)SmNh+c(η1dId+η1jdJdz)ImzNh),V=((γd+μh)Id(γdz+μh)JdzμmImd). |
Therefore, we have
F=(00cβdˆSNh+cβ1dˆIzNh00cβrdˆRzNhcηdˆSmNh+cη1dˆImzNhcηjdˆSmNh+cη1jdˆImzNh0),V=(γd+μh000γdz+μh000μm). |
Through easy calculation, we then get
FV−1=(00cβdˆSμmNh+cβ1dˆIzμmNh00cβrdˆRzμmNhK1K20), |
with
K1=cηdˆSm(γd+μh)Nh+cη1dˆImz(γd+μh)Nh,K2=cηjdˆSm(γdz+μh)Nh+cη1jdˆImz(γdz+μh)Nh. |
Then by solving |λI−FV−1|=0, there is
λ(λ2−c2βrdˆRz(ηjdˆSm+η1jdˆImz)μm(γdz+μh)N2h−c2μm(γd+μh)N2h(βdˆS+β1dˆIz)(ηdˆSm+η1dˆImz))=0. |
Therefore, we can define a reproduction number of dengue with Zika being endemic which is called invasion reproduction number [41] as
R∗d=cNh√βrdˆRz(ηjdˆSm+η1jdˆImz)μm(γdz+μh)+1μm(γd+μh)(βdˆS+β1dˆIz)(ηdˆSm+η1dˆImz). |
Thus, the disease-free equilibrium of dengue E∗d is stable if R∗d<1 and unstable if R∗d>1. In other words, dengue can further become endemic after Zika being endemic if R∗d>1.
Then we discuss how the Zika sexual transmission will affect dengue transmission dynamics when Rd<1. It is easy to see that if Rsz<1, there can be ˆS=Λh/μh, ˆSm=Λm/μm, and ˆIz=ˆImz=ˆRz=0, hence R∗d=Rd. This means, Zika sexual transmission can not lead to dengue to be endemic before invoking a Zika endemic. Further, if we set βrd=β1d=βd, η1d=ηjd=η1jd=ηd and γd=γdz, there is also R∗d=Rd<1 with ˆS+ˆIz+ˆRz=Nh=Λh/μh and ˆSm+ˆImz=Λm/μm. Therefore, under this situation, the sexual transmission of Zika can not lead dengue to be endemic as well.
It is worth mentioning that the phenomenon of antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) usually occurs among the different serotypes of dengue, and between dengue and Zika. There are studies[42,43,44,45] showing that previous exposure to one dengue serotype can increase the risk of the infection by a second serotype. The similar results that plasma to dengue can enhance the infection of Zika have been reported in the clinical studies [46,47,48]. Furthermore, ADE impact between dengue and Zika is actually bidirectional [49]. Therefore, we can assume that there is the ADE of Zika for dengue infection, that is we assume that βrd>βd. Also, we let β1d=βd, η1d=ηjd=η1jd=ηd and γd=γdz. Then, we have that R∗d is increasing as ˆRz increases. Furthermore, ˆRz is increasing as βs increases (see Appendix C for more details). That is, R∗d is increasing as βs increases. This meas that Zika sexual transmission can first induce a Zika endemic, and then can a dengue endemic if there is ADE of Zika for dengue infection.
In this section, through numerical analyses, we investigate how sexual transmission of Zika affects the dynamics of both dengue and Zika. First, in order to determine the most important parameters for impacting the Zika basic reproduction number, we explored the parameter space by performing an uncertainty analysis using a Latin hypercube sampling method. We used a partial rank correlation coefficients (PRCCs) [50,51,52] to examine the sensitivity analysis for the Zika basic reproduction number with respect to all the parameters involved in Rsz. In the absence of data to inform distribution functions, we chose a uniform distribution for all input parameters. The PRCC values for Rsz is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows that the first three parameters with most impact on Rsz are the mosquito mortality rate μm, the biting rate c and the mosquito recruitment rate Λm, and the sexual transmission coefficient is positively correlated to Zika basic reproduction number with a relatively large PRCCs.
As mentioned in the last section, we can assume that there is the ADE of Zika for dengue infection, and we use a parameter κ to describe the multiplication factor of the susceptibility to dengue induced by ADE. Thus, we set βrd=κβd, βrzd=κpβdz. And we assume no ADE of dengue for Zika infection with βrz=βz, βrdz=(1−p)βdz. In order to perform the simulations, we mainly let the parameters βs and κ change and fixed the other parameter values. Table 1 has given an overview of the setup of the basic parameters. The other mosquito-to-humans transmission probabilities are assumed as: β1d=βd, β1zd=pβdz, β1z=βz and β1dz=(1−p)βdz, and the rest parameter values are fixed as:
a1=a2=as1=as2=ar1=ar2=1,γd=γz=γddz=γzdz=γzd=γdz=0.1,c=0.7,μm=0.1,p=0.5,q=0.5,Λm=600,Λh=2.2,μh=0.00014,ηdz=ηjz=ηjd=η1z=η1d=η1dz=η1zd=ηjz=ηjd=ηd=ηz=0.3. |
By fixing κ=1, we plotted the solutions of system (2.1)–(2.2) with various values of βs, as shown in Figure 3. From Figure 3(A) and (C), we find that if there is no sexual transmission of Zika (i.e. βs=0), the basic reproduction number values are Rd=Rsz=0.916<1 and the disease-free equilibrium E0 is stable. When the sexual transmission of Zika is included, it can make the Zika only endemic equilibrium Ez become stable by increasing the Zika basic reproduction number above the threshold 1, as shown in Figure 3(B) and (D). The similar results can also be obtained from the simulation of Zika only model (i.e. model (3.4)), as shown in Figure 4. Furthermore, it follows from Figure 4 that the number of humans infected with Zika can stabilize at a higher level as βs increases. This means that the endemic level of Zika is increasing as Zika sexual transmission coefficient increases. In Figure 3 we fixed κ=1, that is, we assumed that there is no ADE of Zika for dengue infection. Under this scenario, sexual transmission of Zika does not have a significant effect on the dynamics of dengue while it always dies out finally.
Further, by letting κ=3, we plotted the solutions of system (2.1)–(2.2) with various values of Zika sexual transmission coefficient βs in Figure 5. It follows from Figure 5 that the disease-free equilibrium E0 is globally stable when βs=0. However, if we include the Zika sexual transmission by letting βs=0.8, then system (2.1)–(2.2) has a stable endemic equilibrium. Note that, when βs=0.8, Rd is also equal to 0.916 which is less than the threshold 1. However, as we can see from Theorem 3.2, dengue always dies out whenever Rd<1 if no Zika circulates within this area. This means that, due to the cocirculation of dengue and Zika and ADE of Zika for dengue infection, for an area where vector transmission only is not enough to make dengue and Zika be endemic, Zika sexual transmission can not only lead Zika to be endemic, but also make dengue become endemic even though the dengue basic reproduction number is less than unit.
Recently, there is increasing evidence confirming that sexual transmission of Zika occurs among humans. Several studies have investigated how Zika sexual transmission affects the dynamics of the spread of Zika via mathematical modelling. In this work, we developed a dengue-Zika coinfection model to study the impact of Zika sexual transmission on the transmission dynamics of both dengue and Zika when the two diseases cocirculate within a same area.
The basic reproduction number for both dengue and Zika, Rd and Rsz, is determined, and R0=max{Rd,Rsz}<1 is the necessary and sufficient condition for the local stability of the disease-free equilibrium E0. Theoretically, we have proved that the disease-free equilibrium for the dengue only model (Ed0) or Zika only model (Ez0) is globally stable if and only if their basic reproduction number is less than 1. Correspondingly, if the Zika (or dengue) basic reproduction number exceeds the threshold 1, then a Zika (or dengue) only endemic equilibrium for system (2.1)–(2.2) appears.
Through cascade effect analysis and numerical simulations, we try to have a further insight into the impact of Zika sexual transmission on the dynamics of dengue and Zika. The cascade effect analysis shows that Zika sexual transmission can not lead dengue to be endemic before making Zika be endemic, but it can first make Zika be endemic, and then lead dengue to be endemic if there is ADE of Zika for dengue infection. Furthermore, our sensitivity analysis shows that the first three parameters with significant impact on the Zika basic reproduction number are the Zika sexual transmission coefficient, the mortality rate of mosquitoes, and the Zika recovery rate of humans. Rsz increases if the sexual transmission route is included. As a result, the sexual transmission of Zika can lead Zika to be endemic in an area where Zika will die out if there is only the vector-borne transmission. We further found that the epidemic level of Zika increases as Zika transmission coefficient increases.
As mentioned above, when Rd<1, the disease-free equilibrium for the dengue only model is globally stable. That is, if the dengue basic reproduction number is less than 1, dengue always goes to extinction if no Zika circulates in this area. In Figure 3, we showed that Zika sexual transmission may not affect the dynamics of dengue significantly when there isn't ADE of Zika for dengue infection. However, if we assume that there is ADE of Zika for dengue infection, increasing Zika sexual transmission coefficient can make dengue and Zika be endemic simultaneously, as shown in Figure 5. Note that, here the dengue basic reproduction number is equal to 0.916 which is less than 1. In the current study, we take 1/μh as the lifespan of sexual activity for humans as we focus on the effect of sexual transmission on the dynamics of both dengue and Zika in sexual active group. The ignorance of sexual inaction group will disregard the contribution of sexual inactive people to the vector-borne transmission and hence may underestimate disease infections. To estimate the contribution of sexual inactive group on the vector-borne transmission, we plotted the solutions of model (3.4) in Figure 6 by changing the death rate and the recruitment rate of humans and fixing all the other parameters. In Figure 6, we set the lifespan of human as 35 years (taking 1/μh=35 years as the life span of sexual activity for humans) and 70 years (taking 1/μh=70 years as the natural death rate), respectively. Correspondingly, we assume that the recruitment rate of the total population (including the sexual active and inactive groups) is 1.3 or 1.6 times to the recruitment rate of the sexual active group. We obtain that the values of Iz at the endemic equilibrium are 20.16 for μh=1/(35×365),Λh=2.2, 22.43 for μh=1/(70×365),Λh=2.2×1.3, and 25.85 for μh=1/(70×365),Λh=2.2×1.3. Thus, we can estimate the contribution of the sexual inactive group to the vector-borne transmission is about 10 percent with 1.3 times recruitment rate and 22 percent for 1.6 times recruitment rate. There need further study to address this issue in more details.
Our model captures some important results that Zika sexual transmission can not only lead Zika to be endemic, but also further make dengue endemic with an assumption that there is ADE of Zika for dengue infection for the area both the diseases will die out with vectorial transmission only. This means that, due to the coinfection and ADE, increasing the transmission probability (or the endemic level) of one disease can lead to the persistent of the other disease and increase its endemic level. Note that, we set βdz=βd=βz in Figure 5. However, due to the competition on two pathogens within a host, the transmission probability of the co-infection class may be less than the probability of the classes infected of one disease. Thus, we have done further numerical experiments by setting βdz=0.01<βd=βz=0.15 and fixed all the other parameter values as those in Figure 5, and we get the similar conclusion to those shown in Figure 5. This implies that the choice of parameter βdz may not be the unique reason for inducing the interesting result. Hence a deep study will be needed to identify the key factors that promote the transmission of both pathogens when they are co-circulating within the same area, and we leave this for future study. For another aspect, ADE between dengue and Zika is usually bidirectional, and our model is easy to be modified considering this bidirectional effect. Another non-vector borne transmission, vertical transmission, has also been reported [53]. How it will affect the dynamics of both dengue and Zika is still unclear. Addressing this issue would require a further indepth research, and will be the goal of future work. In our model, we did not include the exposed classes for both humans and mosquitos, which can have a significant effect on the transmission dynamics of vector-borne diseases [16,54,55]. It was known that ignoring the extrinsic incubation period in mosquitoes may lead to overestimation of the infection risk. Hence our conclusion obtained here may overestimate the disease infection, but we hope the approaches we used for investigation of coinfection are able to be applied more generally. The higher dimensional model or delay differential equations will be formulated to model the coinfection of dengue and Zika in future study.
This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 11631012, 11571273(YX)), and by the Canada Research Chair Program (230720 (JW)), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (105588-2011 (JW)).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Calculation of R0 for system (2.1)–(2.2)
The basic reproduction number is determined using the next generation operator. Considering the equations of Id,Iz,Idz,Jzd,Jdz,Imd,Imz,Imdz, we have
F=(c(βdImd+pβdzImdz)SNhc(βzImz+(1−p)βdzImdz)SNh+βs(Iz+as1Idz+as2Jzd)SNhβ1s(Iz+a1Idz+a2Jzd)IdNh+c(β1dImd+β1zdImdz)IzNh+c(β1zImz+β1dzImdz)IdNhβrs(Iz+ar1Idz+ar2Jzd)RdNh+c(βrzImz+βrdzImdz)RdNhc(βrdImd+βrzdImdz)RzNhc(ηdId+qηdzIdz+ηjdJdz)SmNhc(ηzIz+(1−q)ηdzIdz+ηjzJzd)SmNhc(η1zIz+η1dzIdz+η1jzJzd)ImdNh+c(η1dId+η1zdIdz+η1jdJdz)ImzNh) |
and
V=(β1s(Iz+a1Idz+a2Jzd)IdNh+c(β1zImz+β1dzImdz)IdNh−(γd+μh)Idc(β1dImd+β1zdImdz)IzNh+(γz+μh)Iz(γddz+γzdz+μh)Idz(γzd+μh)Jzd−γddzIdz(γdz+μh)Jdz−γzdzIdzc(η1zIz+η1dzIdz+η1jzJzd)ImdNh+μmImdc(η1dId+η1zdIdz+η1jdJdz)ImzNh+μmImzμmImdz). |
Then, we obtain
F=(00000cβd0pcβdz0βsas1βsas2βs00cβzC2βdz000000000000000000000000cηdΘ0cqηdzΘ0cηjdΘ0000cηzΘC1ηdzΘcηjzΘ000000000000) |
with Θ=μhΛmμmΛh,C1=c(1−q),C2=c(1−p), and
V=(γd+μh00000000γz+μh00000000v330000000−γddzγzd+μh000000−γzdz0γdz+μh00000000μm00000000μm00000000μm). |
with v33=γddz+γzdz+μh. Thus we have
V−1=(1γd+μh000000001γz+μh00000000v−1330000000v−1431γzd+μh000000v−15301γdz+μh000000001μm000000001μm000000001μm) |
with
v−133=1γddz+γzdz+μh,v−143=γddz(γzd+μh)(γddz+γzdz+μh),v−153=γzdz(γdz+μh)(γddz+γzdz+μh). |
Therefore,
FV−1=(00000b160b180b22b23b2400b27b28000000000000000000000000b610b630b650000b72b73b74000000000000), |
where
b16=cβdμm,b18=pcβdzμm,b22=βsγz+μh,b23=βs[as1(γzd+μh)+as2γddz](γzd+μh)(γddz+γzdz+μh), b24=as2βsγzd+μh, b27=cβzμm,b28=(1−p)cβdzμm, b61=cηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh,b63=c[qηdz(γdz+μh)+ηjdγzdz]μhΛmμm(γdz+μh)(γddz+γzdz+μh)Λh,b65=cηjdμhΛmμm(γddz+μh)Λh, b72=cηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh,b73=c[(1−q)ηdz(γzd+μh)+ηjzγddz]μhΛmμm(γzd+μh)(γddz+γzdz+μh)Λh, b74=cηjzμhΛmμm(γzd+μh)Λh. |
By simple calculating, the corresponding characteristic equation is
λ4(λ2−b16b61)(λ2−b22λ−b27b72)=0, |
from which we have that the dominant eigenvalues of FV−1 are
λ1=√b16b61=√cβdμmcηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh,λ2=b22+√b222+4b27b722=βsγz+μh+√(βsγz+μh)2+4cβzμmcηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh2. |
Therefore, the basic reproduction number for system (2.1)–(2.2) is the spectral radius of FV−1, that is R0=ρ(FV−1)=max{Rd,Rsz}, where
Rd=√cβdμmcηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh |
is the basic reproduction number of dengue, and
Rsz=Rs+√Rs2+4Rz22 |
is the basic reproduction number of Zika with
Rs=βsγz+μh and Rz=√cβzμmcηzμhΛmμm(γz+μh)Λh |
being the basic reproduction numbers of sexual transmission and vectorial transmission for Zika, respectively.
Appendix B. Proof of Theorem 3.2.
Proof. If Rd<1, which means cβdμmcηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh<1, there must exist an ε1>0 satisfying cηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh<ε1<μmcβd. Define a function L1=ε1Id+Imd. It satisfies that L1≥0 along the solution of system (3.3) with L1=0 if and only if Id and Imd are both equal to zero. The derivative of L1 along the solution of system (3.3) satisfies
L′1=ε1cβdImdSNh−ε1(γd+μh)Id+cηdIdSmNh−μmImd ≤cβd(ε1−μmcβd)Imd+(γd+μh)(cηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh−ε1)Id ≤0, |
due to the fact that SNh≤1, Sm≤Λmμm in D1 and the assumption cηdμhΛmμm(γd+μh)Λh<ε1<μmcβd. Further, we have L′1=0 if and only if Id=0 and Imd=0. Thus according to the LaSalle's Invariance Principle, we obtain that Ed0 is globally asymptotically stable in D1.
Appendix C. ˆS and ˆSm are decreasing, and ˆIz, ˆRz and ˆImz are increasing as βs increases if Rsz>1.
Regarding ˆIz as a function of βs, we can prove that it is increasing as βs increases whenever it exists. It follows from the formula of ˆIz that only Rs includes the parameter βs, and it is a monotonous increasing function of βs. Thus we just need to verify the monotonicity of ˆIz with respect to Rs instead. Calculating the derivative of ˆIz with respect to Rs, there is
dˆIzdRs=12Rs2{ARz2+B+1√Δ[(B−ARz2)(ARs+BRs+ARz2−B)−4ABRsRz2]}. |
Definitely there are ARz2+B>0 and 1√Δ>0, further if (B−ARz2)(ARs+BRs+ARz2−B)−4ABRsRz2≥0, there must be dˆIzdRs>0, which means that ˆIz is an increasing function of Rs. Otherwise, when (B−ARz2)(ARs+BRs+ARz2−B)−4ABRsRz2<0, we can verify that ARz2+B+1√Δ[(B−ARz2)(ARs+BRs+ARz2−B)−4ABRsRz2]>0 due to (ARz2+B)2Δ−[(B−ARz2)(ARs+BRs+ARz2−B)−4ABRsRz2]2=(A+B)2Rs2>0. As a conclusion, there is always that ˆIz is increasing as Rs increases, hence increasing as βs increases. Then, it follows from the relationships of ˆS, ˆRz, ˆImz and ˆSm that ˆS and ˆSm are decreasing as βs increases, and ˆRz and ˆImz are increasing as βs increases.
[1] | World Bank (2018) World Development Indicators, United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2019 Revision. |
[2] | The World Bank (2021) Thailand Healthcare Spending, WDI-Home. |
[3] |
Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan CW, et al. (2020) Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: A forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 396: 1285–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2
![]() |
[4] |
Procheş Ş, Wilson JRU, Vamosi JC, et al. (2008) Plant diversity in the human diet: Weak phylogenetic signal indicates breadth. Bioscience 58: 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580209 doi: 10.1641/B580209
![]() |
[5] |
Ficke A, Cowger C, Bergstrom G, et al. (2018) Understanding yield loss and pathogen biology to improve disease management: Septoria nodorum blotch—A case study in wheat. Plant Dis 102: 696–707. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-09-17-1375-FE doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-17-1375-FE
![]() |
[6] |
Wang A, Krishnaswamy S (2012) Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-mediated recessive resistance to plant viruses and its utility in crop improvement. Mol Plant Pathol 13: 795–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00791.x doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00791.x
![]() |
[7] | Ali Şevik M, Akyazi F, Karantina Müdürlüğü Z (2008) Bitki Patojeni Virüslerin Bitki Parazit Nematodlarla Taşınması. Batı Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Derim Derg 25: 1–12. |
[8] |
Heck M (2018) Insect transmission of plant pathogens: A systems biology perspective. mSystems 3: e00168-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00168-17 doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00168-17
![]() |
[9] |
Shi X, Zhang Z, Zhang C, et al. (2021) The molecular mechanism of efficient transmission of plant viruses in variable virus–vector–plant interactions. Hortic Plant J 7: 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpj.2021.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2021.04.006
![]() |
[10] |
Cid M, Fereres A (2010) Characterization of the probing and feeding behavior of planococcus citri (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on grapevine. Ann Entomol Soc Am 103: 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1603/AN09079 doi: 10.1603/AN09079
![]() |
[11] |
Wielkopolan B, Jakubowska M, Obrępalska-Stęplowska A (2021) Beetles as plant pathogen vectors. Front Plant Sci 12: 748093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.748093 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.748093
![]() |
[12] |
Bandte M, Pestemer W, Büttner C, et al. (2009) Ecological aspects of plant viruses in tomato and pathogen risk assessment. Acta Hortic 821: 161–168. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.17 doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.17
![]() |
[13] |
Jones DR (2005) Plant viruses transmitted by thrips. Eur J Plant Pathol 113: 119–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-005-2334-1 doi: 10.1007/s10658-005-2334-1
![]() |
[14] | Krishnareddy M (2013) Impact of climate change on insect vectors and vector-borne plant viruses and phytoplasma. In: Singh HCP, Rao NKS, Shivashankar KS (Eds.), Climate-Resilient Horticulture: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies, Chapter 23, Springer, 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0974-4_23 |
[15] | Zimmer R, Mpyers K, Haber S, et al. (1992) Tomato spotted wilt virus, a problem on grass pea and field pea in the greenhouse in 1990 and 1991. Can Plant Dis Surv 72: 29–31. |
[16] |
Dawidowicz Ł, Rozwałka R (2016) Honeydew Moth Cryptoblabes gnidiella (MILLIÈRE, 1867) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): an adventive species frequently imported with fruit to Poland. Polish J Entomol 85: 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjen-2016-0010 doi: 10.1515/pjen-2016-0010
![]() |
[17] |
Gharsan FN (2019) A Review of the Bioactivity of Plant Products Against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Entomol Sci 54: 256–274. https://doi.org/10.18474/JES18-82 doi: 10.18474/JES18-82
![]() |
[18] |
Ordax M, Piquer-Salcedo JE, Santander RD, et al. (2015) Medfly ceratitis capitata as potential vector for fire blight pathogen erwinia amylovora: Survival and transmission. PLoS One 10: e127560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127560 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127560
![]() |
[19] | Sastry KS (2013) Chapter 1—Transmission of Plant Viruses and Viroids. In: Plant Virus and Viroid Diseases in the Tropics, Springer, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6524-5 |
[20] |
Fereres A, Raccah B (2015) Plant Virus Transmission by Insects, eLS. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0000760.pub3 doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0000760.pub3
![]() |
[21] |
Perilla-Henao LM, Casteel CL (2016) Vector-borne bacterial plant pathogens: Interactions with hemipteran insects and plants. Front Plant Sci 7: 1163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01163 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01163
![]() |
[22] |
Jones DR (2003) Plant viruses transmitted by whiteflies. Eur J Plant Pathol 109: 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022846630513 doi: 10.1023/A:1022846630513
![]() |
[23] |
Ng JCK, Perry KL (2004) Transmission of plant viruses by aphid vectors. Mol Plant Pathol 5: 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00240.x doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00240.x
![]() |
[24] | Sarwar M (2020) Chapter 27—Insects as transport devices of plant viruses. In: Awasthi LP (Ed.), Applied Plant Virology: Advances, Detection, and Antiviral Strategies, Academic Press, 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818654-1.00027-X |
[25] |
Chiquito-Almanza E, Acosta-Gallegos JA, García-Álvarez NC, et al. (2017) Simultaneous detection of both RNA and DNA viruses infecting dry bean and occurrence of mixed infections by BGYMV, BCMV and BCMNV in the Central-West Region of Mexico. Viruses 9: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/v9040063 doi: 10.3390/v9040063
![]() |
[26] | Franco JC, Zada A, Mendel Z (2009) Chapter 9—Novel Approaches for the Management of Mealybug Pests. In: Ishaaya I, Horowitz AR (Eds.), Biorational Control Arthropod Pest (Application and Resistance Management), Springer, 233–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2316-2_10 |
[27] | Cox JM (1989) The mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull Br Museum (Natural Hist) Entomol 58: 1–78. https://biostor.org/reference/113927 |
[28] |
Naegele RP, Cousins P, Daane KM (2020) Identification of Vitis cultivars, rootstocks, and species expressing resistance to a Planococcus mealybug. Insects 11: 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11020086 doi: 10.3390/insects11020086
![]() |
[29] |
Pitino M, Hoffman MT, Zhou L, et al. (2014) The phloem-sap feeding mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) carries 'Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus' populations that do not cause disease in host plants. PLoS One 9: e85503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085503 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085503
![]() |
[30] |
Prabhakar M, Prasad YG, Vennila S, et al. (2013) Hyperspectral indices for assessing damage by the solenopsis mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in cotton. Comput Electron Agric 97: 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2013.07.004
![]() |
[31] | Alliaume A, Reinbold C, Uzest M, et al. (2018) Mouthparts morphology of the mealybug Phenacoccus aceris. Bull Insectology 71: 1–9. http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/ |
[32] |
Bhat AI, Hohn T, Selvarajan R (2016) Badnaviruses: The current global scenario. Viruses 8: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/v8060177 doi: 10.3390/v8060177
![]() |
[33] | Kaydan MB, Kozár F, Hodgson C (2015) A review of the phylogeny of Palaearctic mealybugs (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae). Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 73: 175–195. |
[34] | Coaker TH, Hill DS (1984) Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control. J Appl Ecol 21: 721. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16341512 |
[35] | Neuenschwander P, Borgemeister C, Langewald J, et al. (2003) Biological control in IPM systems in Africa, 1–414. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996394.0000 |
[36] |
Mendel Z, Protasov A, Jasrotia P, et al. (2012) Sexual maturation and aging of adult male mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull Entomol Res 102: 385–394. https://doi: 10.1017/S0007485311000605 doi: 10.1017/S0007485311000605
![]() |
[37] | Joy PP, Anjana R (2016) Insect pests of pineapple and their management. Pineapple Research Station (Karela Agicultural University), Vazhakhulam 1–3. |
[38] |
Kono M, Koga R, Shimada M, et al. (2008) Infection dynamics of coexisting beta- and gammaproteobacteria in the nested endosymbiotic system of mealybugs. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 4175–4184. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00250-08 doi: 10.1128/AEM.00250-08
![]() |
[39] | Byron MA, Gillett-kaufman JL (2020)Targioni Tozzetti (Insecta : Hemiptera : Pseudococcidae) 1. Biology (Basel) 1–3. |
[40] |
Daane KM, Cooper ML, Triapitsyn SV, et al. (2008) Vineyard managers and researchers seek sustainable solutions for mealybugs, a changing pest complex. Calif Agric 62: 167–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.3733/ca.v062n04p167 doi: 10.3733/ca.v062n04p167
![]() |
[41] | Ben-Dov Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance, Intercept Limited. Available from: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19941106629. |
[42] |
Khan M (2019) Abundance, damage severity and management of guava mealybug, ferrisia virgata ckll. SAARC J Agric 16: 73–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/sja.v16i2.40260 doi: 10.3329/sja.v16i2.40260
![]() |
[43] | Afzal M, Rahman SU, Siddiqui MT (2009) Appearance and management of a new devastating pest of cotton, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley in Pakistan. 2009 Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, Texas, 1023–1039. Available from: https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005-2022/data/conferences/2009/papers/9051.pdf. |
[44] | Aheer GM, Shah Z, Saeed M (2009) Seasonal history and biology of cotton mealy, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. J Agric Res 4: 423–432. |
[45] | Bhat AI, Devasahayam S, Sarma YR, et al. (2003) Association of a badnavirus in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) transmitted by mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) in India. Curr Sci 84: 1547–1550. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24108260 |
[46] | Khumpumuang P, Urairong H, Yongsawatdigul J, et al. (2019) Selection of soil bacteria for controlling cassava mealybugs. Suranaree J Sci Technol 26: 166–186. |
[47] |
Roivainen O (1976) Transmission of cocoa viruses by mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Agric Food Sci 48: 203–304. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.71915 doi: 10.23986/afsci.71915
![]() |
[48] |
Sarpong TM, Asare-Bediako E, Acheampong L (2017) Perception of mealybug wilt effect and management among pineapple farmers in Ghana. J Agric Ext 21: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v21i2.1 doi: 10.4314/jae.v21i2.1
![]() |
[49] | Watson GW, Kubiriba J (2005) Identification of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on banana and plantain in Africa. African Entomol 13: 35–47. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC32626 |
[50] |
Asare‐Bediako E, Nyarko J, Puije GC (2020) First report of Pineapple mealybug wilt associated virus‐2 infecting pineapple in Ghana. New Dis Reports 41: 9. https://doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2020.041.009 doi: 10.5197/j.2044-0588.2020.041.009
![]() |
[51] |
Celepci E, Uygur S, Bora Kaydan M, et al. (2017) Mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) species on weeds in Citrus (Rutaceae) plantations in Çukurova Plain, Turkey Çukurova Bölgesi'nde turunçgil alanlarındaki yabancıotlar üzerinde bulunan unlubit (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) türleri. Türk entomol bült 7: 15–21. https://doi: 10.16969/teb.14076 doi: 10.16969/teb.14076
![]() |
[52] |
Lopes FSC, de Oliveira JV, Oliveira JE de M, et al. (2019) Host plants for mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in grapevine crops. Pesqui Agropecu Trop 49. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632019v4954421 doi: 10.1590/1983-40632019v4954421
![]() |
[53] |
Kansiime MK, Rwomushana I, Mugambi I, et al. (2020) Crop losses and economic impact associated with papaya mealybug (Paracoccus marginatus) infestation in Kenya. Int J Pest Manag 69: 1861363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2020.1861363 doi: 10.1080/09670874.2020.1861363
![]() |
[54] | Sosan MB, Ajibade RO, Udah O, et al. (2020) Preliminary survey of mealybug incidence and infestation on pawpaw (Carica papaya l.) in a rainforest ecology in Nigeria. Ife J Agric 32: 79–90. Available from: https://ija.oauife.edu.ng/index.php/ija/article/view/337. |
[55] |
Tachie-Menson J, Sarkodie-Addo J, Carlson A (2015) Effects of weed management on the prevalence of pink Pineapple mealybugs in Ghana. J Sci Technol 34: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.4314/just.v34i2.3 doi: 10.4314/just.v34i2.3
![]() |
[56] | Wih K, Billah M (2012) Diversity of fruit flies and mealybugs in the upper west region of Ghana. J Dev Sustain Agric 7: 39–45. http://197.255.68.203/handle/123456789/1766 |
[57] |
Muniappan R, Shepard BM, Watson GW, et al. (2008) First report of the papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), in Indonesia and India. J Agric Urban Entomol 25: 37–40. https://doi.org/10.3954/1523-5475-25.1.37 doi: 10.3954/1523-5475-25.1.37
![]() |
[58] |
Charles JG (1988) Economic damage and preliminary economic thresholds for mealybugs (Pseudococcus longispinus t-t.) in auckland vineyards. New Zeal J Agric Res 25: 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1982.10417905 doi: 10.1080/00288233.1982.10417905
![]() |
[59] | Fand BB, Kumar M, Kamble AL (2014) Predicting the potential geographic distribution of cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis in India based on MAXENT ecological niche Model. J Environ Biol 35: 973–982. |
[60] |
Nagrare VS, Kranthi S, Biradar VK, et al. (2009) Widespread infestation of the exotic mealybug species, Phenacoccus solenopsis (Tinsley) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), on cotton in India. Bull Entomol Res 99: 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485308006573 doi: 10.1017/S0007485308006573
![]() |
[61] |
Thennarasi A, Jeyarani S, Sathiah N (2021) Diversity of predators associated with the mealybug complex in cassava growing districts of Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Plant Soil Sci 33: 62–79. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i2230684 doi: 10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i2230684
![]() |
[62] |
Rauwane ME, Odeny DA, Millar I, et al. (2018) The early transcriptome response of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) to mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) feeding. PLoS One 13: e0202541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202541 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202541
![]() |
[63] |
Dey KK, Green JC, Melzer M, et al. (2018) Mealybug wilt of pineapple and associated viruses. Horticulturae 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae4040052 doi: 10.3390/horticulturae4040052
![]() |
[64] |
Franco JC, Suma P, Da Silva EB, et al. (2004) Management strategies of mealybug pests of citrus in mediterranean countries. Phytoparasitica 32: 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980445 doi: 10.1007/BF02980445
![]() |
[65] | Woolf AB, Ben-Arie R (2011) Chapter 9—Persimmon (Diospyros kaki L.). In: Kader AA, Yahia EL (Eds.), Postharvest Biology and Technology of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits, Woodhead Publishing, 166–194e. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857092618.166 |
[66] |
Grasswitz TR, James DG (2008) Movement of grape mealybug, Pseudococcus maritimus, on and between host plants. Entomol Exp Appl 129: 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00786.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00786.x
![]() |
[67] | Heppner JB, Heppner JB, Capinera JL, et al. (2008) Vine Mealybug, Planococcus ficus Signoret (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). In: Capinera JL (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Entomology, Springer, 4108–4111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6359-6_3979 |
[68] |
Nébié K, Nacro S, Otoidobiga L, et al. (2016) Population dynamics of the mango mealybug Rastrococcus invadens Williams (Homoptera: Pseudococcidea) in western Burkina Faso. Am J Exp Agric 11: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2016/24819 doi: 10.9734/AJEA/2016/24819
![]() |
[69] |
Kubiriba J, Legg JP, Tushemereirwe W, et al. (2001) Vector transmission of Banana streak virus in the screenhouse in Uganda. Ann Appl Biol 139: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2001.tb00128.x doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2001.tb00128.x
![]() |
[70] |
Yu N, Luo Z, Fan H, et al. (2015) Complete genomic sequence of a Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus-1 from Hainan Island, China. Eur J Plant Pathol 141: 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-014-0545-z doi: 10.1007/s10658-014-0545-z
![]() |
[71] | Kumar PKV, Reddy GVM, Seetharama HG, et al. (2016) Coffee. In: Mani M, Shivaraju C (Eds.), Mealybugs and their Management in Agricultural and Horticultural crops, Springer, 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2677-2_70 |
[72] |
Rae DJ, Jones RE (1992) Influence of host nitrogen levels on development, survival, size and population dynamics of sugarcane mealybug, Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Aust J Zool 40: 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9920327 doi: 10.1071/ZO9920327
![]() |
[73] |
Haviland DR, Beede RH (2012) Seasonal phenology of Ferrisia gilli (Hemiptera: pseudococcidae) in commercial pistachios. J Econ Entomol 105: 1681–1687. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec12070 doi: 10.1603/ec12070
![]() |
[74] |
Bertin S, Cavalieri V, Gribaudo I, et al. (2016) Transmission of Grapevine virus A and Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 and 3 by Heliococcus bohemicus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) nymphs from plants with mixed infections. J of Econ Entom 109: 1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow120 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow120
![]() |
[75] |
Abdel-Moniem ASH, Farag NA, Abbass MH (2005) Vertical distribution of some piercing sucking insects on some roselle varieties in Egypt and the role of amino acids concentration in infestation. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 38: 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235400400008390 doi: 10.1080/03235400400008390
![]() |
[76] |
Myrick S, Norton GW, Selvaraj KN, et al. (2014) Economic impact of classical biological control of papaya mealybug in India. Crop Prot 56: 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023
![]() |
[77] | Mani M, Krishnamoorthy A, Shivaraju C (2011) Biological suppression of major mealybug species on horticultural crops in India. J Hortl Sci 6: 85–100. |
[78] | Ghosh AB, Ghosh SK (1985) Effect of infestation of Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell) on host plants. Indian Agric 29: 141–147. |
[79] | Roda A, Francis A, Kairo MTK, et al. (2013) Planococcus minor (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): Bioecology, survey and mitigation strategies. In: Potential Invasive Pests Agric Crop, Wallingford UK: CABI, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938291.0288 |
[80] |
Charles JG (2010) Using parasitoids to infer a native range for the obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus viburni, in South America. BioControl 56: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-010-9322-x doi: 10.1007/s10526-010-9322-x
![]() |
[81] |
Sakthivel P, Karuppuchamy, Kalyanasundaram M, et al. (2012) Host plants of invasive papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Williams and Granara de Willink) in Tamil Nadu. Madras Agric J 99: 615–619. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.100154 doi: 10.29321/MAJ.10.100154
![]() |
[82] |
Cocco A, Pacheco da Silva VC, Benelli G, et al. (2021) Sustainable management of the vine mealybug in organic vineyards. J Pest Sci 94: 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-020-01305-8 doi: 10.1007/s10340-020-01305-8
![]() |
[83] | Selvarajan R, Balasubramanian V, Padmanaban B (2016) Mealybugs as vectors. In: Mani M, Shivaraju C (Eds.), Mealybugs and their Management in Agricultural and Horticultural Crops, Springer, 123–130. |
[84] |
Sether DM, Hu JS (2002) Closterovirus infection and mealybug exposure are necessary for the development of mealybug wilt of pineapple disease. Phytopathology 92: 928–935. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.9.928 doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.9.928
![]() |
[85] |
Obok EE, Aikpokpodion PO, Ani OC, et al. (2021) Cacao swollen shoot virus detection and DNA barcoding of its vectors and putative vectors in Theobroma cacao L. by using polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnologia 102: 229–244. https://doi.org/10.5114/bta.2021.108719 doi: 10.5114/bta.2021.108719
![]() |
[86] |
Fuchs M, Bar-Joseph M, Candresse T, et al. (2020) ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Closteroviridae. J Gen Virol 101: 364–365. https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001397 doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001397
![]() |
[87] | Martelli GP, Abou Ghanem-Sabanadzovic N, Agranovsky AA, et al. (2012) Taxonomic revision of the family closteroviridae with special reference to the grapevine leafroll-associated members of the genus ampelovirus and the putative species unassigned to the family. J Plant Pathol 94: 7–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45156004 |
[88] |
Dey KK, Sugikawa J, Kerr C, et al. (2019) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) plants displaying virus-like symptoms are co-infected with a novel potyvirus and a novel ampelovirus. Virus Genes 55: 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-018-1616-6 doi: 10.1007/s11262-018-1616-6
![]() |
[89] |
Martelli GP, Agranovsky AA, Bar-Joseph M, et al. (2002) The family Closteroviridae revised. Arch Virol 147: 2039–2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007050200048 doi: 10.1007/s007050200048
![]() |
[90] |
Ameyaw GA, Dzahini-Obiatey HK, Domfeh O (2014) Perspectives on cocoa swollen shoot virus disease (CSSVD) management in Ghana. Crop Prot 65: 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.001
![]() |
[91] |
Fariña AE, Rezende JAM, Wintermantel WM (2019) Expanding knowledge of the host range of tomato chlorosis virus and host plant preference of Bemisia tabaci MEAM1. Plant Dis 103: 1132–1137. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-18-1941-RE doi: 10.1094/PDIS-11-18-1941-RE
![]() |
[92] | Flint ML (2016) PEST NOTES Statewide integrated pest management program integrated pest management for homes, gardens, and landscapes mealybugs publication 74174. Available from: https://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74174.html. |
[93] | Tsai CW, Rowhani A, Golino DA, et al. (2010) Mealybug transmission of grapevine leafroll viruses: An analysis of virus-vector specificity. Phytopathology 100: 830–834. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-100-8-0830 |
[94] |
Sether DM, Melzer MJ, Busto J, et al. (2005) Diversity and mealybug transmissibility of ampeloviruses in pineapple. Plant Dis 89: 450–456. https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-89-0450 doi: 10.1094/PD-89-0450
![]() |
[95] |
Ito T, Nakaune R (2016) Molecular characterization of a novel putative ampelovirus tentatively named grapevine leafroll-associated virus 13. Arch Virol 161: 2555–2559. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-016-2914-8 doi: 10.1007/s00705-016-2914-8
![]() |
[96] |
Bahder BW, Poojari S, Alabi OJ, et al. (2013) Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and Parthenolecanium corni (hemiptera: coccidae) are capable of transmitting grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 between vitis x labruscana and vitis vinifera. Environ Entomol 42: 1292–1298. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN13060 doi: 10.1603/EN13060
![]() |
[97] |
Thekke-Veetil T, Aboughanem-Sabanadzovic N, Keller KE, et al. (2013) Molecular characterization and population structure of blackberry vein banding associated virus, new ampelovirus associated with yellow vein disease. Virus Res 178: 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2013.09.039 doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2013.09.039
![]() |
[98] |
Larrea-Sarmiento A, Olmedo-Velarde A, Wang X, et al. (2021) A novel ampelovirus associated with mealybug wilt of pineapple (Ananas comosus). Virus Genes 57: 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-021-01852-x doi: 10.1007/s11262-021-01852-x
![]() |
[99] | Wallingford AK, Fuchs MF, Martinson T, et al. (2015) Slowing the spread of grapevine leafroll-associated viruses in commercial vineyards with insecticide control of the vector, Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). J Insect Sci 15: 112. https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjisesa%2Fiev094 |
[100] |
Wistrom CM, Blaisdell GK, Wunderlich LR, et al. (2016) Ferrisia gilli (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) transmits grapevine leafroll-associated viruses. J Econ Entomol 109: 1519–1523. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow124 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow124
![]() |
[101] |
Maguet J Le, Beuve M, Herrbach E, et al. (2012) Transmission of six ampeloviruses and two vitiviruses to grapevine by Phenacoccus aceris. Phytopathology 102: 717–723. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-10-11-0289 doi: 10.1094/phyto-10-11-0289
![]() |
[102] |
Petersen CL, Charles JG (1997) Transmission of grapevine leafroll-associated closteroviruses by Pseudococcus longispinus and P. calceolariae. Plant Pathol 46: 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.1997.d01-44.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.1997.d01-44.x
![]() |
[103] |
Reynard JS, Schneeberger PHH, Frey JE, et al. (2015) Biological, serological, and molecular characterization of a highly divergent strain of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 4 causing grapevine leafroll disease. Phytopathology 105: 1164–1284. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0386-R doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0386-R
![]() |
[104] |
Ochoa-Martínez DL, Uriza-Ávila DE, Rojas-Martínez RI (2016) Detection of Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus 1 and 3 in Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología 34: 131–141. https://doi.org/10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.1601-1 doi: 10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.1601-1
![]() |
[105] |
Al Rwahnih M, Rowhani A, Westrick N, et al. (2018) Discovery of viruses and virus-like pathogens in pistachio using high-throughput sequencing. Plant Dis 102: 1189–1471. https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-12-17-1988-re doi: 10.1094/pdis-12-17-1988-re
![]() |
[106] |
Chouk G, Elair M, Chaabouni AC, et al. (2021) Pistacia vera L. hosts pistachio ampelovirus A in Tunisia. J Plant Pathol 103: 1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42161-021-00905-2 doi: 10.1007/s42161-021-00905-2
![]() |
[107] | Elbeaino T, Digiaro M, De Stradis A, et al. (2007) Identification of a second member of the family Closteroviridae in mosaic-diseased figs. J Plant Pathol 89: 119–124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41998365 |
[108] | Yorganci S, Açıkgöz S (2019) Transmission of fig leaf mottle-associated virus 1 by Ceroplastes rusci. J Plant Pathol 101: 1199–1201. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48699659 |
[109] |
Dolja VV, Koonin EV (2013) The closterovirus-derived gene expression and RNA interference vectors as tools for research and plant biotechnology. Front Microbiol 4: 83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00083 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00083
![]() |
[110] |
Komorowska B, Hasiów-Jaroszewska B, Czajka A (2020) Occurrence and detection of little cherry virus 1, little cherry virus 2, cherry green ring mottle virus, cherry necrotic rusty mottle virus, and cherry virus A in stone fruit trees in Poland. Acta Virol 64: 100–103. https://doi.org/10.4149/av_2020_112 doi: 10.4149/av_2020_112
![]() |
[111] |
Ferreira CHL de H, Jordão LJ, Ramos-Sobrinho R, et al. (2019) Diversification into the genus Badnavirus: Phylogeny and population genetic variability. Rev Ciência Agrícola 17: 59. https://doi.org/10.28998/rca.v17i2.6286 doi: 10.28998/rca.v17i2.6286
![]() |
[112] |
Kreuze JF, Perez A, Gargurevich MG, et al. (2020) Badnaviruses of sweet potato: Symptomless coinhabitants on a global scale. Front Plant Sci 11: 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00313 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00313
![]() |
[113] |
Borah BK, Sharma S, Kant R, et al. (2013) Bacilliform DNA-containing plant viruses in the tropics: Commonalities within a genetically diverse group. Mol Plant Pathol 14: 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12046 doi: 10.1111/mpp.12046
![]() |
[114] |
Quainoo AK, Wetten AC, Allainguillaume J (2008) Transmission of cocoa swollen shoot virus by seeds. J Virol Methods 150: 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.03.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.03.009
![]() |
[115] | Ameyaw GA (2020) Management of the cacao swollen shoot virus (CSSV) menace in Ghana: The past, present and the future. In: Topolovec-Pintarić S (Ed.), Plant Diseases—Current Threats and Management Trends, London, UK: IntechOpen., 1–3. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87009 |
[116] |
Bömer M, Rathnayake AI, Visendi P, et al. (2018) Complete genome sequence of a new member of the genus Badnavirus, Dioscorea bacilliform RT virus 3, reveals the first evidence of recombination in yam badnaviruses. Arch Virol 163: 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-017-3605-9 doi: 10.1007/s00705-017-3605-9
![]() |
[117] | Koch KG, Jones T-KL, Badillo-Vargas IE (2020) Chapter 26—Arthropod vectors of plant viruses. In: Awasthi LP (Ed.), Applied Plant Virology—Advances, Detection, and Antiviral Strategies, Academic Press, 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818654-1.00026-8 |
[118] | Adams MJ, Candresse T, Hammond J, et al. (2012) Family—Betaflexiviridae. In: King AMQ, Lefkowitz E, Adams MJ, et al. (Eds.), Virus Taxonomy—Ninth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, London, Elsevier Academic Press, 920–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384684-6.00078-1 |
[119] | Hull R (2002) Chapter 6—Genome Organization. In: Matthews REF, Hull R (Eds.), Matthews' Plant Virology, Gulf professional publishing, 171–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-361160-4.X5050-6 |
[120] |
Mani M, Joshi S, Kalyanasundaram M, et al. (2013) A new invasive jack beardsley mealybug, Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on papaya in India. Florida Entomol 96: 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.096.0135 doi: 10.1653/024.096.0135
![]() |
[121] |
Andres C, Gattinger A, Dzahini-Obiatey HK, et al. (2017) Combatting cocoa swollen shoot virus disease: What do we know? Crop Prot 98: 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.03.010 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.03.010
![]() |
[122] |
Karar H, Sayyed AH, Arif MJ, et al. (2010) Integration of cultural and mechanical practices for management of the mango mealybug Drosicha mangiferae. Phytoparasitica 38: 223–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12600-010-0094-8 doi: 10.1007/s12600-010-0094-8
![]() |
[123] |
Haviland DR, Bentley WJ, Daane KM (2005) Hot-water treatments for control of Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on dormant grape cuttings. J Econ Entomol 98: 1109–1115. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-98.4.1109 doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-98.4.1109
![]() |
[124] |
Carabalí-Banguero DJ, Wyckhuys KAG, Montoya-Lerma J, et al. (2013) Do additional sugar sources affect the degree of attendance of Dysmicoccus brevipes by the fire ant Solenopsis geminata? Entomol Exp Appl 148: 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eea.12076 doi: 10.1111/eea.12076
![]() |
[125] | Vincent C, Weintraub P, Hallman G (2009) Chapter 200—Physical control of insect pests. In: Resh VH, Cardé RT (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Insects (Second Edition), Academic press, 794–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374144-8.00209-5 |
[126] |
Franco JC, Silva EB, Cortegano E, et al. (2008) Kairomonal response of the parasitoid Anagyrus spec. nov. near pseudococci to the sex pheromone of the vine mealybug. Entomol Exp Appl 126: 122–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00643.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00643.x
![]() |
[127] | Kaur Gill H, Gaurav G, Gillett-Kaufman JL (2019) Citrus mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). University of Florida. Available from: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN947. |
[128] | Hartley DE (1992) 12—Poinsettias. In: Larson RA (Ed.), Introduction to Floriculture (Second Edition), Academic Press, 305–331. |
[129] |
Le Vieux PD, Malan AP (2013) An overview of the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) in South African vineyards and the use of entomopathogenic nematodes as potential biocontrol agent. South African J Enol Vitic 34: 108–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.21548/34-1-1086 doi: 10.21548/34-1-1086
![]() |
[130] | Tohamy TH, El-Raheem AAA, El-Rawy AM (2008) Role of the cultural practices and natural enemies for suppressing infestation of the pink sugarcane mealybug, Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in sugarcane fields at Minia Governorate, Middle Egypt. Egypt J Biol Pest Control 18: 177–188. Available from: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20093037731. |
[131] | Mani M, Shivaraju C (2016) Mealybugs and their management in agricultural and horticultural crops, Springer, 1–655. |
[132] |
Cadée N, Van Alphen JJM (1997) Host selection and sex allocation in Leptomastidea abnormis, a parasitoid of the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri. Entomol Exp Appl 83: 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00182.x doi: 10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00182.x
![]() |
[133] |
Giordanengo P, Nénon JP (1990) Melanization and encapsulation of eggs and larvae of Epidinocarsis lopezi by its host Phenacoccus manihoti; effects of superparasitism and egg laying patterns. Entomol Exp Appl 56: 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1990.tb01393.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1990.tb01393.x
![]() |
[134] |
Pijls JWAM, Poleij LM, Van Alphen JJM, et al. (1996) Interspecific interference between Apoanagyrus lopezi and A. diversicornis, parasitoids of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti. Entomol Exp Appl 78: 221–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb00785.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb00785.x
![]() |
[135] |
Lapointe SL (2015) A tribute to Dr. Anthony C. Bellotti and his contributions to Cassava entomology. Fla Entomol 98: 810–814. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0267 doi: 10.1653/024.098.0267
![]() |
[136] |
Walton VM, Pringle KL (2017) A survey of mealybugs and associated natural enemies in vineyards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. South African J Enol Vitic 25: 23–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.21548/25-1-2134 doi: 10.21548/25-1-2134
![]() |
[137] | Çalışkan AF, Ulusoy MR (2018) Distribution, host plants, parasitoids, and predators of cotton mealybug. Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) from Eastern Mediterrenean region, 4th International Agriculture Congress, Muğla, 05–08. |
[138] |
Chen HY, Li HL, Pang H, et al. (2021) Investigating the parasitoid community associated with the invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis in Southern China. Insects 12: 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040290 doi: 10.3390/insects12040290
![]() |
[139] |
Zart M, De MacEdo MF, Rando JSS, et al. (2021) Performance of entomopathogenic nematodes on the mealybug, Dysmicoccus brevipes (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and the compatibility of control agents with nematodes. J Nematol 53: 2021–2041. https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2021-020 doi: 10.21307/jofnem-2021-020
![]() |
[140] | Chellappan M (2019) Evaluation of entomopathogenic fungus for the management of pink mealybug, Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple in Kerala. J Entomol Zool Stud 7: 1215–1222. |
[141] |
Bigger M (1981) The relative abundance of the mealybug vectors (Hemiptera: Coccidae and Pseudococcidae) of Cocoa swollen shoot disease in Ghana. Bull Entomol Res 71: 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300008464 doi: 10.1017/S0007485300008464
![]() |
[142] |
Fuenmayor Y, Portillo E, Bastidas B, et al. (2021) Infection parameters of Heterorhabditis amazonensis (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae) in different stages of Hibiscus pink mealybug. J Nematol 52: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-077 doi: 10.21307/jofnem-2020-077
![]() |
[143] | Katiyar RL, Kumar V, Manjunath D, et al. (2000) Biology of Anagyrus kamali (Moursi) (Hymenoptera : Encyrtidae)—A parasitoid of the mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), with a note on its incidence. Int J Ind Entomol 1: 143–148. |
[144] |
Singh KD, Mobolade AJ, Bharali R, et al. (2021) Main plant volatiles as stored grain pest management approach: A review. J Agric Food Res 4: 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100127 doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100127
![]() |
[145] |
Taylor A, Birkett JW (2020) Pesticides in cannabis: A review of analytical and toxicological considerations. Drug Test Anal 12: 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2747 doi: 10.1002/dta.2747
![]() |
[146] |
Farahy O, Laghfiri M, Bourioug M, et al. (2021) Overview of pesticide use in Moroccan apple orchards and its effects on the environment. Curr Opin Environ Sci Heal 19: 100223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.011 doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.011
![]() |
[147] |
Kaur R, Mavi GK, Raghav S, et al. (2019) Pesticides classification and its impact on environment. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 8: 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.224 doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.224
![]() |
[148] | Babar M, Afzal S, Sikandar Z, et al. (2018) Efficacy of different insecticides under laboratory conditions against Drosicha mangiferae Green (Homoptera : Margarodidae) collected from citrus orchards of Sargodha, Pakistan. Pakistan J Entomol Zool Stud 6: 2855–2858. |
[149] |
Mansour R, Belzunces LP, Suma P, et al. (2018) Vine and citrus mealybug pest control based on synthetic chemicals. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38: 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0513-7 doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0513-7
![]() |
[150] | Edde PA (2022) 4—Arthropod pests of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). In: Field Crop Arthropod Pests of Economic Importance, Academic Press, 208–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818621-3.00003-3 |
[151] | Akhter A, Hage-Ahmed K, Soja G, et al. (2016) Potential of Fusarium wilt-inducing chlamydospores, in vitro behaviour in root exudates and physiology of tomato in biochar and compost amended soil. Plant Soil 406: 425–440. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-016-2948-4 |
[152] |
Sequeira RV, Khan M, Reid DJ (2020) Chemical control of the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Australian cotton–glasshouse assessments of insecticide efficacy. Austral Entomol 59: 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12446 doi: 10.1111/aen.12446
![]() |
[153] | Waiganjo MM, Waturu CN, Mureithi JM (2011) Use of entomopathogenic Fungi and neem bio-pesticides for Brassica pests control and conservation of their natural enemies. East Afr Agric For J 77: 1&2. |
[154] |
Gahukar RT (2014) Factors affecting content and bioefficacy of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) phytochemicals used in agricultural pest control: A review. Crop Prot 62: 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.04.014
![]() |
[155] | Pascoli M, de Albuquerque FP, Calzavara AK, et al. (2020) The potential of nanobiopesticide based on zein nanoparticles and neem oil for enhanced control of agricultural pests. J Pest Sci 93: 793–806. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-020-01194-x |
[156] |
Ahmed S, Grainge M (1986) Potential of the neem tree (Azadirachta indica) for pest control and rural development. Econ Bot 40: 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859144 doi: 10.1007/BF02859144
![]() |
[157] | Abul Monjur Khan M (2016) Efficacy of insect growth regulator Buprofezin against Papaya mealybug. J Entomol Zool Stud 4: 730–733. |
[158] | Ujváry I (2010) Chapter 3—Pest control agents from natural products. In: Krieger R (Ed.), Hayes' Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology (Third Edition), Academic press, 119–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374367-1.00003-3 |
[159] | ShouHorng H, ChingYi L (2014) Distribution and control of pink pineapple mealybug and survey of insect pests on pineapple. J Taiwan Agric Res 63: 68–76. |
[160] |
Rai BK, Sinha AK (1980) Pineapple: Chemical control of mealybug and associated ants in Guyana. J Econ Entomol 73: 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/73.1.41 doi: 10.1093/jee/73.1.41
![]() |
[161] |
Hussain M, Noureen N, Fatima S, et al. (2016) Cotton mealybug management: A Review. Middle-East J Sci Res 24: 2424–2430. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2016.24.08.101221 doi: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2016.24.08.101221
![]() |
[162] |
Atu UG, Okeke JE (2009) Effect of insecticide application on cassava yield in control of cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus Manlhotl). Trop Pest Manag 27: 434–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670878109413818 doi: 10.1080/09670878109413818
![]() |
[163] |
Hanna AD, Heatherington W, Judenko E (1952) Control of the mealybug vectors of the swollen shoot virus by a systemic insecticide. Nature 169: 334–335. https://doi.org/10.1038/169334a0 doi: 10.1038/169334a0
![]() |
[164] | Islam M, Ahmad M, Islam K, et al. (2006) Chemical control of citrus mealybug planococcus Citri risso (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera) and the toxicological effects of insecticides on its predators Menochilussexmaculatus F. and Micraspis discolor F. (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera). J Sci Found 4: 27–30. |
[165] |
Ganjisaffar F, Andreason SA, Perring TM (2019) Lethal and sub-lethal effects of insecticides on the pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Insects 10: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10010031 doi: 10.3390/insects10010031
![]() |
1. | Ibrahim M. Hezam, Abdelaziz Foul, Adel Alrasheedi, A dynamic optimal control model for COVID-19 and cholera co-infection in Yemen, 2021, 2021, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-021-03271-6 | |
2. | Laura Atzori, Caterina Ferreli, Valeria Mateeva, Snejina Vassileva, Franco Rongioletti, Clinico-pathologic features between different viral epidemic outbreaks involving the skin, 2021, 0738081X, 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2021.04.002 | |
3. | Xiaoyan Yuan, Yijun Lou, Daihai He, Jinliang Wang, Daozhou Gao, A Zika Endemic Model for the Contribution of Multiple Transmission Routes, 2021, 83, 0092-8240, 10.1007/s11538-021-00945-w | |
4. | James W. Mungin, Xin Chen, Bindong Liu, Interferon Epsilon Signaling Confers Attenuated Zika Replication in Human Vaginal Epithelial Cells, 2022, 11, 2076-0817, 853, 10.3390/pathogens11080853 | |
5. | Laura Atzori, Caterina Ferreli, Valeria Mateeva, Snejina Vassileva, Franco Rongioletti, Clinicopathologic features among different viral epidemic outbreaks involving the skin, 2022, 40, 0738081X, 573, 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2021.06.003 | |
6. | Weike Zhou, Biao Tang, Yao Bai, Yiming Shao, Yanni Xiao, Sanyi Tang, The resurgence risk of COVID-19 in China in the presence of immunity waning and ADE: A mathematical modelling study, 2022, 40, 0264410X, 7141, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.10.043 | |
7. | Wafa F. Alfwzan, Ali Raza, Jesus Martin-Vaquero, Dumitru Baleanu, Muhammad Rafiq, Nauman Ahmed, Zafar Iqbal, Modeling and transmission dynamics of Zika virus through efficient numerical method, 2023, 13, 2158-3226, 10.1063/5.0168945 | |
8. | Jiwei Jia, Jian Ding, Siyu Liu, Guidong Liao, Jingzhi Li, Ben Duan, Guoqing Wang, Ran Zhang, Modeling the control of COVID-19: impact of policy interventions and meteorological factors, 2020, 2020, 1072-6691, 23, 10.58997/ejde.2020.23 | |
9. | Jhoana P. Romero-Leiton, Elda K.E. Laison, Rowin Alfaro, E. Jane Parmley, Julien Arino, Kamal R. Acharya, Bouchra Nasri, Exploring Zika's Dynamics: A Scoping Review Journey from Epidemic to Equations Through Mathematical Modelling, 2024, 24680427, 10.1016/j.idm.2024.12.016 |
Variables | Definitions |
Sm | Susceptible mosquitoes |
Imd | Mosquitoes infected with dengue only |
Imz | Mosquitoes infected with Zika only |
Imdz | Mosquitoes infected with dengue and Zika |
Nh | Total number of humans |
S | Humans susceptible to dengue and Zika |
Id | Humans infected with dengue but susceptible to Zika |
Iz | Humans infected with Zika but susceptible to dengue |
Idz | Humans infected with both dengue and Zika |
Rd | Humans recovered from dengue and susceptible to Zika |
Rz | Humans recovered from Zika and susceptible to dengue |
Jzd | Humans recovered from dengue but infected with Zika |
Jdz | Humans recovered from Zika but infected with dengue |
Rdz | Humans recovered from both dengue and Zika |
Definitions | Value(range) | Reference | |
μh | Human mortality rate | 0.00014[118×365,150×365] | [19] |
Λm | Mosquito recruitment rate | 600[400,5000] | [33] |
μm | Mosquito mortality rate | 0.1[0.028,0.25] | [33,16] |
c | Mosquito biting rate | 0.7[0.3,1] | [33,16] |
βd (β1d) | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for dengue | 0.15[0.125,0.385] | [33,16] |
βz (β1z) | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for Zika | 0.15[0.125,0.385] | [33,16] |
βdz | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for both | 0.15[0.03,0.75] | [33,16] |
βrd(βrz) | Dengue transmission probability from Imd(Imz) to Iz(Id) | κβd(βz) | Assumed |
β1zd(β1dz) | Dengue(Zika) transmission probability from Imdz to Iz(Id) | pβdz((1−p)βdz) | Assumed |
βrzd(βrdz) | Dengue(Zika) transmission probability from Imdz to Rz(Rd) | κpβdz((1−p)βdz) | Assumed |
ηd(η1d,η1zd,ηjd,η1jd) | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of dengue | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
ηz(η1z,η1dz,ηjz,η1jz) | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of Zika | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
ηdz | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of both | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
γd(γddz,γdz) | Recovery rate of humans infected with dengue | 0.1[0.017,0.33] | [33] |
γz(γzdz,γzd) | Recovery rate of humans infected with Zika | 0.1[0.1,0.2] | [16] |
κ | Antibody dependent enhancement factor of the susceptibility of dengue | Varied [1,3] | [34,35,36] |
p | Probability of dengue infection when S is infected with Imdz | 0.5(0, 1) | Assumed |
q | Probability of dengue infection when Sm is infected with Idz | 0.5(0, 1) | Assumed |
βs(β1s/βrs) | Sexual transmission coefficient of Zika from Iz to S(Id/Rd) | Varied [0, 1] | Assumed |
as1(a1/ar1) | Relative sexual transmissibility of Idz to S(Id/Rd) compared with Iz | 1 | Assumed |
as2(a2/ar2) | Relative sexual transmissibility of Jzd to S(Id/Rd) compared with Iz | 1 | Assumed |
Λh | Human recruitment rate | 2.2 | Assumed |
Variables | Definitions |
Sm | Susceptible mosquitoes |
Imd | Mosquitoes infected with dengue only |
Imz | Mosquitoes infected with Zika only |
Imdz | Mosquitoes infected with dengue and Zika |
Nh | Total number of humans |
S | Humans susceptible to dengue and Zika |
Id | Humans infected with dengue but susceptible to Zika |
Iz | Humans infected with Zika but susceptible to dengue |
Idz | Humans infected with both dengue and Zika |
Rd | Humans recovered from dengue and susceptible to Zika |
Rz | Humans recovered from Zika and susceptible to dengue |
Jzd | Humans recovered from dengue but infected with Zika |
Jdz | Humans recovered from Zika but infected with dengue |
Rdz | Humans recovered from both dengue and Zika |
Definitions | Value(range) | Reference | |
μh | Human mortality rate | 0.00014[118×365,150×365] | [19] |
Λm | Mosquito recruitment rate | 600[400,5000] | [33] |
μm | Mosquito mortality rate | 0.1[0.028,0.25] | [33,16] |
c | Mosquito biting rate | 0.7[0.3,1] | [33,16] |
βd (β1d) | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for dengue | 0.15[0.125,0.385] | [33,16] |
βz (β1z) | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for Zika | 0.15[0.125,0.385] | [33,16] |
βdz | Mosquito-to-human transmission probability for both | 0.15[0.03,0.75] | [33,16] |
βrd(βrz) | Dengue transmission probability from Imd(Imz) to Iz(Id) | κβd(βz) | Assumed |
β1zd(β1dz) | Dengue(Zika) transmission probability from Imdz to Iz(Id) | pβdz((1−p)βdz) | Assumed |
βrzd(βrdz) | Dengue(Zika) transmission probability from Imdz to Rz(Rd) | κpβdz((1−p)βdz) | Assumed |
ηd(η1d,η1zd,ηjd,η1jd) | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of dengue | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
ηz(η1z,η1dz,ηjz,η1jz) | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of Zika | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
ηdz | Human-to-mosquito transmission probability of both | 0.3[0.3,0.75] | [33,16] |
γd(γddz,γdz) | Recovery rate of humans infected with dengue | 0.1[0.017,0.33] | [33] |
γz(γzdz,γzd) | Recovery rate of humans infected with Zika | 0.1[0.1,0.2] | [16] |
κ | Antibody dependent enhancement factor of the susceptibility of dengue | Varied [1,3] | [34,35,36] |
p | Probability of dengue infection when S is infected with Imdz | 0.5(0, 1) | Assumed |
q | Probability of dengue infection when Sm is infected with Idz | 0.5(0, 1) | Assumed |
βs(β1s/βrs) | Sexual transmission coefficient of Zika from Iz to S(Id/Rd) | Varied [0, 1] | Assumed |
as1(a1/ar1) | Relative sexual transmissibility of Idz to S(Id/Rd) compared with Iz | 1 | Assumed |
as2(a2/ar2) | Relative sexual transmissibility of Jzd to S(Id/Rd) compared with Iz | 1 | Assumed |
Λh | Human recruitment rate | 2.2 | Assumed |