Why aphid virus retention needs more attention: Modelling aphid behaviour and virus manipulation in non-persistent plant virus transmission
Fig 6
MIP-BAR and MIP models respond differently to virus manipulation parameters v (infected plant attractiveness) and ε (infected plant acceptability), leading to different predictions for effects of ‘attract-and-deter’ and ‘attract-and-retain’ phenotypes.
(a-f) Columns represent the same plots for the two virus manipulation parameters, ε (infected plant acceptability) and v (infected plant attractiveness). Left (a)/(d): parameter versus MIP-BAR/MIP model aphid infectivity loss rate (rate at equilibrium for MIP-BAR model, calculated as in Eq 20); Middle (b)/(e): parameter versus MIP-BAR/MIP model aphid dispersal rate (rate at equilibrium for MIP-BAR model, calculated as in Eq 14); Right (c)/(f): parameter versus disease incidence (equilibrium I/H) for MIP, MIP-BAR and BAR models. For all plots, the red dot signifies the default parameterisation. Apart from the parameter being altered in each graph, all parameters are at their default values in all plots (Table 2). Note that in all cases the disease incidence for the BAR model and the MIP-BAR model are identical; note further that the parameters and
are not defined for the BAR model. (g-i) Heatmaps across v-ε parameter space of: (g) MIP model disease incidence, (h) MIP-BAR model disease incidence, (i) Difference in disease incidence between MIP-BAR and MIP models (MIP-BAR—MIP). Grey = areas of multiple stable I/H equilibria (or where difference cannot be calculated due to this, for (i)). Dotted lines are at v = 1 and ε = 1, lines of no virus manipulation. To the right of the line of v = 1 represents the ‘attract’ phenotype. Above the line ε = 1 is the ‘retain’ phenotype, and below is ‘deter’. All parameters except v and ε are at their default values in all plots (Table 2).