Optimal harvest preferences under constraints <i>h</i>_<i>Pj</i>(<i>H</i>) = 0.6<i>h</i>_<i>Pf</i>(<i>H</i>), <i>h</i>_<i>Pm</i>1(<i>H</i>), <i>h</i>_<i>Pm</i>2(<i>H</i>), which give the lowest disease prevalence at the given harvest intensity <i>H</i>, for the six different transmission mechanisms.

Optimal harvest preferences under constraints hPj(H) = 0.6hPf(H), hPm1(H), hPm2(H), which give the lowest disease prevalence at the given harvest intensity H, for the six different transmission mechanisms.</p

The number of new infections in the next generation (10) per one infected male <i>q</i>_<i>G</i>1 and female <i>q</i>_<i>G</i>2 for models in Table 4.

<p>Estimates are made for buck:doe ratio of 1:3 and 1:6. In the last column, there is management action giving the biggest reduction of secondary cases per one removed individual.</p

Testing hypotheses on the details of disease transmission (structure of the matrix <i>F</i> in Eqs (12) and (13)).

<p>Hypotheses with ΔAIC < 2 are marked with bold font. The same four models have the lowest AIC_C as well.</p

Dependence of efficiency of harvest control with fixed preferences on transmission mechanism TM<i>i</i> (bottom left corner) and preferences (<i>h</i>_<i>Pj</i>, <i>h</i>_<i>Pf</i>, <i>h</i>_<i>Pm</i>1, <i>h</i>_<i>Pm</i>2) shown by line styles.

<p>Non-monotonous behavior arises due to switching in the model: involvement of younger males in mating or too low buck:doe ratio and decline in birth rate. Density dependence is according to (A12), but (A14) with θ = 1 and 2 give indistinguishable plots.</p

Buck:doe and fawn:doe ratios corresponding to constrained optimal harvest preferences in Fig 2.

<p>Buck:doe and fawn:doe ratios corresponding to constrained optimal harvest preferences in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151039#pone.0151039.g002" target="_blank">Fig 2</a>.</p

Ratio of juvenile to adult disease prevalence (solid line) and population disease prevalence (dotted line) corresponding to constrained optimal harvest preferences in Fig 2 and fawn:doe ratios in Fig 3.

<p>For TM3 and TM4 disease transmission to juveniles is less and optimal harvest regimes result in a higher proportion of juveniles in the population.</p

Hunter harvest and CWD prevalence estimates for 2006–2011.

<p>Hunter harvest and CWD prevalence estimates for 2006–2011.</p

Harvest preferences used in calculations in Fig 3.

<p>Harvest preferences used in calculations in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151039#pone.0151039.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3</a>.</p

Buck:doe and fawn:doe ratios corresponding to the optimal harvest preferences in Fig 5.

<p>In spite of differences in control policy, the ratios are close to those in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151039#pone.0151039.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3</a>, and disease eradication is achieved at the same harvest intensity as in Figs <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151039#pone.0151039.g002" target="_blank">2</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151039#pone.0151039.g003" target="_blank">3</a>.</p

Fitting 6 to 10 parameter models to data, with culling terms <i>γ</i>₁,<i>γ</i>₂ and immigration terms <i>j</i>₁,<i>j</i>₂ present (+) or absent (–); see Eqs (12) and (13).

<p>The model in row 12 with the lowest AIC and AIC_C is shown in bold; it shows no culling effect for males. AIC_C also supports model in row 16 with no culling effect for either males or females. None of the best models show significance of immigration terms.</p