Table 5.
Percent reductions in abundance with LSM (applied in isolation): a comparison with GN-LSM [[10]]
| C1 | T1 | C2 | T2 | C3 | T3 | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Diagonal |
GN-LSM (Absorbing) |
4.2 |
38.4 |
8 |
100 |
69.6 |
100 |
[10] |
| Absorbing |
2.08 |
−21.63 |
3.56 |
43.82 |
31.74 |
85.32 |
This study |
|
| Non-absorbing |
−1.82 |
−23.24 |
0.22 |
39.55 |
29.72 |
82.65 |
This study |
|
|
Horizontal |
GN-LSM (Absorbing) |
8.9 |
−5.7 |
44 |
100 |
34.3 |
100 |
[10] |
| Absorbing |
4.35 |
7.37 |
−3.96 |
29.03 |
29.3 |
78.82 |
This study |
|
| Non-absorbing |
3.25 |
6.71 |
−3.27 |
22.29 |
34.16 |
54.01 |
This study |
|
| Vertical | GN-LSM (Absorbing) |
2.8 |
30.6 |
16.67 |
100 |
33.14 |
100 |
[10] |
| Absorbing |
5.21 |
15.45 |
24.17 |
55.54 |
43.21 |
91.79 |
This study |
|
| Non-absorbing | 5.32 | 14.32 | 23 | 52.13 | 40.45 | 88.20 | This study | |
These results are obtained using LSM only (without ITNs). Rows labelled with Diagonal, Horizontal and Vertical refer to the different arrangements of houses in the landscapes (see Methods and Additional file 5). C1, C2, C3 and T1, T2, T3 refer to non-targeted and targeted removal scenarios, respectively. Each value (in the rows labelled as Absorbing and Non-absorbing) represents the average percent reduction of 50 simulation runs.