Negative density-dependent dispersal in tsetse (Glossina spp): An artefact of inappropriate analysis.

• Published in: PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• Main Authors: John W Hargrove, John Van Sickle, Glyn A Vale, Eric R Lucas
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009026; https://doaj.org/article/751385c3bf12403c8ef0cbe8849d9970

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.