Fig 1.
Gompertz model predictions for each temperature and block combination overlaid on corresponding raw (Kaplan-Meier) survival data; (A) experimental block 1; (B) experimental block 2.
Raw data and numerical values can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.74389 [34].
Table 1.
Initial mortality rate (α), age-dependent exponential constant (β) and median survival time for each temperature and experimental block.
Fig 2.
Dynamics of infectiousness over time for each temperature and block combination.
Sporogony represented by the change in proportion of infectious mosquitoes over time. Blue points with connecting lines represent dynamics for each experimental cup in block 1; red points with connecting lines represent cup dynamics for block 2. The logistic regression model for block 1 is depicted by the solid black line, whereas the model for block 2 is the dashed black line. Raw data and numerical values can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.74389 [34].
Fig 3.
Predicted values for EIP10 (light grey), EIP50 (grey), and EIP90 (black) for each temperature in (A) experimental block 1 and (B) experimental block 2; dotted lines represent the predicted thermal performance curve for the respective EIPs, while the red line is the EIP of P. falciparum predicted from the widely-used degree-day model of Detinova 1962 [27]. (C) Predicted values for vector competence (g, the asymptote of the sporogony curve in Fig 2) across temperature for block 1 (blue) and block 2 (red). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Numerical values can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.74389 [34]. EIP, extrinsic incubation period.
Fig 4.
Mean length of the gonotrophic cycle (days) for each temperature.
Error bars represent standard deviation; superscripts represent significant differences (p < 0.05) upon posthoc analysis. Numerical values can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.74389 [34].
Fig 5.
Thermal performance curves for (A) biting rate, (B) vector competence, (C) mosquito mortality rate, and (D) parasite development rate (based on the extrinsic incubation period time in days until 50% of maximum infectiousness [EIP50]), comparing the current study to the equivalent curves proposed by Mordecai et al. [4] by using mixed-species data. (E) Shows the predicted temperature-dependent model of rVC based on the thermal performance curves from this study, using data for the EIP50. Numerical values can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.74389 [34]. EIP, extrinsic incubation period; rVC, relative vectorial capacity.
Fig 6.
Curves for dynamic model of transmission potential for each temperature.
Area curves for rates of survival (blue) and infection (pink) for each temperature; pPurple areas represent the product of the two 2 curves (i.e., the number of mosquitoes alive and infectious or “infectious mosquito days”). Dashed line represents the day at which collection of raw data ended; curves to the right of the dashed line represent values calculated from both survival and infection model estimates (mean for both experimental blocks). Numerical values can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.74389 [34].
Table 2.
Predicted number of infectious bites for a cohort of 100 females over a period of 50 days.
Fig 7.
(A) Best fit thermal performance curve for relative force of infection (here the number of infectious bites predicted for a cohort of 100 female mosquitoes); grey points represent the calculated number of bites for the mean of both experimental blocks and error bars represent standard deviation. (B) Comparison of scaled thermal performance curves for rVC and relative force of infection. Numerical values can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.74389 [34]. rVC, relative vectorial capacity.