Distribution of household-level expenditure related to protective measures.

<p>Distribution of household-level expenditure related to protective measures.</p

Tornado diagram of the change (in millions of Euro) in the estimated expenditure on protective measures related to variation in the main determinants of this expenditure.

<p>Lower sensitivity values are provided in dark grey. Higher sensitivity values are provided in light grey.</p

Location of sampled zones in La Réunion.

<p>Red dots provide the approximate location of zones of households interviewed. Urban areas are shaded in a darker grey.</p

Descriptive statistics.

<p>Descriptive statistics.</p

Variation of the estimated expenditure on protective measures against mosquitoes in La Réunion (red line and associated 95% CI in black dotted lines) with changes in the average Breateau Index (yellow line) over a one-year period.

<p>Variation of the estimated expenditure on protective measures against mosquitoes in La Réunion (red line and associated 95% CI in black dotted lines) with changes in the average Breateau Index (yellow line) over a one-year period.</p

Extrapolating household expenditure for La Réunion.

<p>Extrapolating household expenditure for La Réunion.</p

Infection status of wild caught <i>Ae. albopictus</i> as determined with standard PCR [11].

<p>A−B+ and A+B+ refer to <i>w</i>AlbB singly infected and <i>w</i>AlbA/<i>w</i>AlbB co-infected mosquitoes, respectively. Differences between male and female infection patterns were analysed using Fisher's exact test (<i>p</i>-values are reported for each sample, in italics when significant).</p

Mean <i>Wolbachia</i> density in wild specimens from La Réunion Island.

<p>Each DNA was quantified in triplicate and the average density was calculated for each specimen. Mean density in the population is reported for each sex and is depicted in black for <i>w</i>AlbA and grey for <i>w</i>AlbB. Standard error is calculated on the mean of all average densities (males N = 15, females N = 10).</p

Survival curves of field males (N = 220; dotted line) and LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] males (N = 177; solid line) in the semi-field setup.

<p>Survival curves of field males (N = 220; dotted line) and LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] males (N = 177; solid line) in the semi-field setup.</p

Assessment of mating competitiveness of LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] males under semi-field conditions.

<p>In each confrontation, 200 field females were mixed with each of the four following field to LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] males ratios: 1:0 (200 field males), 1:1 (200 field males and 200 LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] males), 1:5 (200 field males and 1000 LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] males) and 0:1 (200 LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] males). The trials of the 1:0 and 0:1 ratios were performed in April; two trials for the 1:1 ratio were performed in April and four in December; whilst for the 1:5 ratio two trials were performed in April and three in December. Expected frequency of infertile egg rafts (in black) was calculated assuming equal competitiveness of LR[<i>w</i>Pip(Is)] and field males. Total embryonic mortality (HR = 0%) was noted in all infertile egg rafts.</p