Implicit versus explicit control strategies in models for vector-borne disease epidemiology

Throughout the vector-borne disease modeling literature, there exist two general frameworks for incorporating vector management strategies (e.g. area-wide adulticide spraying and larval source reduction campaigns) into vector population models, namely, the "implicit" and "explicit" control frameworks. The more simplistic "implicit" framework facilitates derivation of mathematically rigorous results on disease suppression and optimal control, but the biological connection of these results to real-world "explicit" control actions that could guide specific management actions is vague at best. Here, we formally define the biological and mathematical relationships between implicit and explicit control, and we provide mathematical expressions relating the strength of implicit control to management-relevant properties of explicit control for four common intervention strategies. These expressions allow optimal control and sensitivity analysis results in existing implicit control studies to be interpreted in terms of real-world actions. Our work reveals a previously unknown fact: implicit control is a meaningful approximation of explicit control only when resonance-like synergistic effects between multiple controls have a negligible effect on average population reduction. When non-negligible synergy exists, implicit control results, despite their mathematical tidiness, fail to provide accurate predictions regarding vector control and disease spread. The methodology we establish can be applied to study the interaction of phenological effects with control strategies, and we present a new technique for finding impulse control strategies that optimally reduce a vector population in the presence of seasonally oscillating model parameters. Collectively, these elements build an effective bridge between analytically interesting and mathematically tractable implicit control and the challenging, action-oriented explicit control.