Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/GeneralPunctuation.js
Research article Special Issues

A Multilevel Analysis of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Effect on Preterm Births in Georgia, USA

  • This study estimates the neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) effect on the risk of preterm birth (PTB) using multilevel regression (MLR) models. Birth data retrieved from year 2000 and 2010 Georgia Vital Records were linked to their respective census tracts. Principle component analysis (PCA) was performed on nine selected census variables and the first two principal components (Fac1 and Fac2) were used to represent the neighborhood-level SES in the MLR models. Two-level random intercept MLR models were specified using 122,744 and 112,578 live and singleton births at the individual level and 1613 and 1952 census tracts at the neighborhood level, for 2000 and 2010, respectively. After adjustment for individual level factors, Fac1, which represents disadvantaged SES, respectively generated an Odds Ratio of 1.056 (95% CI: 1.031-1.081) and 1.080 (95% CI: 1.056-1.105) for these two years, showing a modest but statistically significant effect on PTB. After adjusting for individual level factors and the census tract level factors, Intra-class correlation (ICC) was 1.2% and 1.4%, for year 2000 and 2010, respectively. The two IOR-80% intervals, 0.73-1.52 (year 2000) and 0.73-1.59 (year 2010) suggest large unexplained between census tract variation. The Median Odds Ratio (MOR) value of 1.21(year 2000) and 1.23 (year 2010) revealed that the un-modeled neighborhood effect was smaller than two individual-level predictor variables, race, and tobacco use but larger than the fixed effect of census tract-level predicting variable, Fac1 and all the other individual level factors. Overall, better census tract level SES was found to have a modest protective effect for PTB risk and the effects of the two examined years were similar. Large unexplained between census tract heterogeneity warrants more sophisticated MLR models to further investigate the PTB risk factors and their interactions at both individual and neighborhood levels.

    Citation: Wei Tu, Jun Tu, Stuart Tedders. A Multilevel Analysis of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Effect on Preterm Births in Georgia, USA[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 638-654. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.638

    Related Papers:

    [1] Shifa Tariq Ashraf , Ayesha Obaid , Muhammad Tariq Saeed , Anam Naz , Fatima Shahid , Jamil Ahmad , Amjad Ali . Formal model of the interplay between TGF-β1 and MMP-9 and their dynamics in hepatocellular carcinoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3285-3310. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019164
    [2] Guohai Wang, Zhiyuan Hu . Icotinib inhibits proliferation and epithelial-mesenchymal transition of non-small cell lung cancer A549 cells. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 7707-7718. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019386
    [3] Sufang Wu, Hua He, Jingjing Huang, Shiyao Jiang, Xiyun Deng, Jun Huang, Yuanbing Chen, Yiqun Jiang . FMR1 is identified as an immune-related novel prognostic biomarker for renal clear cell carcinoma: A bioinformatics analysis of TAZ/YAP. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 9295-9320. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022432
    [4] Jun Xu, Bei Wang, Zhengtao Liu, Mingchun Lai, Mangli Zhang, Shusen Zheng . miR-223-3p regulating the occurrence and development of liver cancer cells by targeting FAT1 gene. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(2): 1534-1547. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020079
    [5] Donggu Lee, Sunju Oh, Sean Lawler, Yangjin Kim . Bistable dynamics of TAN-NK cells in tumor growth and control of radiotherapy-induced neutropenia in lung cancer treatment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(4): 744-809. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025028
    [6] Dongchen Lu, Wei Han, Kai Lu . Identification of key microRNAs involved in tumorigenesis and prognostic microRNAs in breast cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 2923-2935. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020164
    [7] Hejian Chen, Shuiyu Xu, Yuhong Zhang, Peifeng Chen . Systematic analysis of lncRNA gene characteristics based on PD-1 immune related pathway for the prediction of non-small cell lung cancer prognosis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 9818-9838. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023430
    [8] Li-Bing Wang, Liang Feng, Jing He, Bo Liu, Jian-Guang Sun . MiR-125a-5p inhibits the proliferation and invasion of breast cancer cells and induces apoptosis by targeting GAB2. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 6923-6933. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019347
    [9] Feng Chen, Xuqing Zhu, Jing Zheng, Tingting Xu, Kuan Wu, Chuhui Ru . RHAMM regulates the growth and migration of lung adenocarcinoma A549 cell line by regulating Cdc2/CyclinB1 and MMP9 genes
    . Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2150-2163. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020114
    [10] Xu Guo, Yuanming Jing, Haizhou Lou, Qiaonv Lou . Effect and mechanism of long non-coding RNA ZEB2-AS1 in the occurrence and development of colon cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 8109-8120. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019408
  • This study estimates the neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) effect on the risk of preterm birth (PTB) using multilevel regression (MLR) models. Birth data retrieved from year 2000 and 2010 Georgia Vital Records were linked to their respective census tracts. Principle component analysis (PCA) was performed on nine selected census variables and the first two principal components (Fac1 and Fac2) were used to represent the neighborhood-level SES in the MLR models. Two-level random intercept MLR models were specified using 122,744 and 112,578 live and singleton births at the individual level and 1613 and 1952 census tracts at the neighborhood level, for 2000 and 2010, respectively. After adjustment for individual level factors, Fac1, which represents disadvantaged SES, respectively generated an Odds Ratio of 1.056 (95% CI: 1.031-1.081) and 1.080 (95% CI: 1.056-1.105) for these two years, showing a modest but statistically significant effect on PTB. After adjusting for individual level factors and the census tract level factors, Intra-class correlation (ICC) was 1.2% and 1.4%, for year 2000 and 2010, respectively. The two IOR-80% intervals, 0.73-1.52 (year 2000) and 0.73-1.59 (year 2010) suggest large unexplained between census tract variation. The Median Odds Ratio (MOR) value of 1.21(year 2000) and 1.23 (year 2010) revealed that the un-modeled neighborhood effect was smaller than two individual-level predictor variables, race, and tobacco use but larger than the fixed effect of census tract-level predicting variable, Fac1 and all the other individual level factors. Overall, better census tract level SES was found to have a modest protective effect for PTB risk and the effects of the two examined years were similar. Large unexplained between census tract heterogeneity warrants more sophisticated MLR models to further investigate the PTB risk factors and their interactions at both individual and neighborhood levels.


    Zika virus, a mosquito-borne flavivirus, was first isolated in monkeys a rhesus in Uganda in 1947. Later, it was detected in humans in Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania in 1952 [1]. From the 1960s to 1980s, rare sporadic cases of human infections were found throughout Africa and Asia. The first recorded outbreak was reported from the Island of Yap in 2007 [2]. In March 2015, Brazil reported a large outbreak of rash illness, soon identified as Zika virus infection, and later found to be associated with Guillain-Barr $ \acute{e} $ syndrome and microcephaly [3]. On February 1, 2016, WHO declared Zika as a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern" [4]. Since the outbreak of Zika in Brazil, the expansion of the Zika outbreak has seemed unstoppable. It spread rapidly from Brazil to northern Europe [5], Australia [6], through Canada [7], the USA [8], subsequently, arrived to reach Japan [9], China [10]. Zika cases have been reported in 90 countries and territories by November 4, 2019 [11]. Recently, November 6, 2021, 13 new cases were reported in Uttar Pradesh's Kanpur district, which took the case tally to 79 in the state during the past two weeks. Authorities in the Indian capital region said they were on alert in the wake of a spike in Zika virus cases in the neighbouring state of Uttar Pradesh. It is natural to ask how the previously unknown Zika virus spreads rapidly in the short term.

    Since the outbreak of Zika in Brazil, many models have been proposed to study spread, impact, and control of Zika disease and dynamic behaviors. Zhang et al. [12] employed a SEIR (Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed)-SEI (Susceptible-Exposed-Infected) human-vector model to estimate the time of first introduction of Zika to Brazil. Zhao et al. [13] considered the limited medical resources in Zika model and obtained rich bifurcation phenomena, such as, backward bifurcation, Hopf bifurcation, Bogdanov-Takens bifurcation of codimension 2 and discontinuous bifurcation. Various ordinary differential equations (ODEs) models and dynamics analyses had been applied to study Zika outbreak [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. However, the above models ignore the effects of the spatial factors. In fact, the spread of the disease concerns not only the time, but also the spatial location. For this purpose, some researchers began to describe spatio-temporal transmission of Zika disease through partial differential equations (PDEs) [21,22]. Miyaoka et al. [21] considered spatial movement of humans and vectors and formulated a reaction diffusion model to research the effect of vaccination on the transmission and control of Zika disease. Yamazaki [22] added diffusive terms in Zika model in order to capture the movement of human hosts and mosquitoes, considering the unique threat of the sexual transmission of Zika disease. In the above PDEs models, all the coefficients are positive constants. That is, the dynamics of humans and vectors are described in spatially homogeneous environments. However, the diffusion dynamics of the disease is affected by the natural landscapes, the urban and rural distribution, even cultural geographical factors [23]. To make the model more consistent with the spread laws of the disease, the spatial heterogeneity must be considered. Hence, it is necessary to understand the transmission dynamics of the Zika disease influenced by the spatial heterogeneity [24]. However, in the above studies, the contaminated aquatic environments, an important transmission route for Zika virus, seem to have received little attention.

    Recently, experimental result [25] demonstrated that $ Aedes $ mosquitoes can acquire and transmit Zika virus by breeding in contaminated aquatic environments. It implies that $ Aedes $ mosquitoes are infected by Zika virus not only through biting infectious hosts but also through urine excreted by Zika patients. This new transmission route makes the transmission cycle of Zika virus much shorter. It may be one of the major causes of rapid spread of Zika virus in nature. Therefore, it is more reasonable to introduce environment transmission route (That is, human-environment-mosquito-human transmission route) into Zika model [26]. However, few Zika models incorporate environment transmission route and spatial heterogeneity simultaneously.

    The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we propose a novel reaction-diffusion Zika model with environment transmission route in a spatial heterogeneous environment, which is different from all Zika models mentioned earlier. In Section 3, the well-posedness and some properties of the model are also discussed. The basic offspring number $ R_{0}^{m} $ and basic reproduction number $ R_{0} $ for our spatial model are established in Section 4. In Section 5, by using comparison arguments and the theory of uniform persistence, the threshold dynamics for the model in terms of $ R_{0}^{m} $ and $ R_{0} $ are analysed. A brief conclusion is given in Section 7.

    In this section, we propose a reaction-diffusion Zika model with environment transmission route. Considering the effects of individual mobility, we assume that a host population lives in a spatial heterogeneous environment, which is represented with a bounded domain $ \Omega $ with smooth boundary $ \partial\Omega $. Mosquitoes are classified in aquatic and adult mosquitoes. Here we combine the egg, larval and pupal stages as one aquatic stage. Aquatic mosquitoes are divided into susceptible and infectious compartments, and their spatial densities at location $ x $ and time $ t $ are represented by $ S_{a}(x, t) $ and $ I_{a}(x, t) $, respectively. Adult mosquitoes are divided into susceptible and infectious compartments with spatial densities $ S_{m}(x, t) $ and $ I_{m}(x, t) $, respectively. We divide the density of total human population at location $ x $ and time $ t $, denoted by $ N_{h}(x, t) $, into three categories: susceptible humans $ S_{h}(x, t) $, infectious humans $ I_{h}(x, t) $ and recovered humans $ R_{h}(x, t) $. So $ N_{h}(x, t) = S_{h}(x, t)+I_{h}(x, t)+R_{h}(x, t). $ $ V(x, t) $ represents the density at location $ x $ and time $ t $ of Zika virus within the contaminated aquatic environments. Implication of $ V(x, t) $ is similar to avian influenza virus concentration in water [27,28].

    In this paper, we extend our previous model [26] to consider mosquitoes and humans in spatially heterogeneous environments. So, the transmission path of Zika virus is similar to literature [26]. In order to incorporate the multiple factors of diffusion and spatial heterogeneity in the spatial domain $ \Omega $, we assume that the parameters $ K(x) $, $ \vartheta(x) $, $ \omega(x) $, $ \mu_{a}(x) $, $ \mu_{m}(x) $, $ \Lambda(x) $, $ \mu_{h}(x) $, $ r(x) $, $ a(x) $, $ \beta_{1}(x) $, $ \beta_{2}(x) $, $ \beta_{v}(x) $, $ \theta(x) $, $ \delta(x) $ are functions of the spatial location $ x $ where the contact occurs, and these space dependent parameters are continuous and strictly positive. Mathematically, we assume that all aquatic mosquitoes do not diffuse, and all adult mosquitoes have the same diffusion rate, denoted by $ d_m > 0 $, while all humans have the same diffusion rate, denoted by $ d_h > 0 $. The biological meanings of all parameters are shown in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Parameters description.
    Parameter Description
    $ K(x) $ The environment carrying capacity of aquatic mosquitoes at location $ x $
    $ l $ The fraction of hatched female mosquitoes from all eggs
    $ s $ Probability of mosquito egg-to-adult survival
    $ \vartheta(x) $ Intrinsic oviposition rate at location $ x $
    $ \omega(x) $ Maturation rate from aquatic stages to adult mosquitoes at location $ x $
    $ \mu_{a}(x) $ Death rate of aquatic mosquitoes at location $ x $
    $ \mu_{m}(x) $ Death rate of adult mosquitoes at location $ x $
    $ \Lambda(x) $ Recruitment rate of humans at location $ x $
    $ \mu_{h}(x) $ Natural death rate of humans at location $ x $
    $ r(x) $ Recovery rate of humans at location $ x $
    $ a(x) $ Biting rate of mosquitoes at location $ x $
    $ \beta_{1}(x) $ Transmission probability from infectious humans to susceptible mosquitoes at location $ x $
    $ \beta_{2}(x) $ Transmission probability from infectious mosquitoes to susceptible humans at location $ x $
    $ \beta_{v}(x) $ Transmission rate from contaminated aquatic environments to aquatic mosquitoes at location $ x $
    $ \theta(x) $ Excretion rate for each infected individual at location $ x $
    $ \delta(x) $ Clearance rate of Zika virus in contaminated aquatic environments at location $ x $
    $ d_m $ Adult mosquito diffusion rate
    $ d_h $ Human diffusion rate

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    On the basis of above assumptions, following the flow diagram in Figure 1, we will focus on the spatiotemporal reaction-diffusion Zika model with environment transmission route as follows:

    Figure 1.  Flow diagram of Zika transmission. The parameters are given in Table 1.
    $ {Sat=lsϑ(x)(Sm+Im)(1Sa+IaK(x))βv(x)SaVω(x)Saμa(x)Sa,xΩ,t>0,Iat=βv(x)SaVω(x)Iaμa(x)Ia,xΩ,t>0,Smt=dmSm+ω(x)Saa(x)β1(x)IhSmNhμm(x)Sm,xΩ,t>0,Imt=dmIm+ω(x)Ia+a(x)β1(x)IhSmNhμm(x)Im,xΩ,t>0,Sht=dhSh+Λ(x)a(x)β2(x)ImShNhμh(x)Sh,xΩ,t>0,Iht=dhIh+a(x)β2(x)ImShNhr(x)Ihμh(x)Ih,xΩ,t>0,Rht=dhRh+r(x)Ihμh(x)Rh,xΩ,t>0,Vt=θ(x)Ihδ(x)V,xΩ,t>0,Smn=Imn=Shn=Ihn=Rhn=0,xΩ,t>0,Sa(x,0)=Sa0(x)0,Ia(x,0)=Ia0(x)0,Sm(x,0)=Sm0(x)0,xΩ,Im(x,0)=Im0(x)0,Sh(x,0)=Sh0(x)0,Ih(x,0)=Ih0(x)0,xΩ,Rh(x,0)=Rh0(x)0,V(x,0)=V0(x)0,xΩ, $ (2.1)

    where $ \triangle $ represents the Laplacian operator. The density of total human population $ N_{h}(x, t) $ can be determined by the following equation

    $ {Nht=dhNh+Λ(x)μh(x)Nh,xΩ,t>0,Nhn=0,xΩ,t>0. $ (2.2)

    From Lemma 1 in [29], system (2.2) admits a globally attractive positive steady state $ H(x) $ in $ C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}_{+}) $. For simplicity, we assume that the density of total human population at location $ x $ and time $ t $ stabilizes at $ H(x) $. That is, $ N_{h}(x, t) \equiv H(x) $, $ \forall\; t \geq0, x\in \Omega. $ Therefore, it suffices to consider the following reduced system:

    $ {Sat=ρ(x)(Sm+Im)(1Sa+IaK(x))βv(x)SaVω(x)Saμa(x)Sa,xΩ,t>0,Iat=βv(x)SaVω(x)Iaμa(x)Ia,xΩ,t>0,Smt=dmSm+ω(x)Saa(x)β1(x)H(x)IhSmμm(x)Sm,xΩ,t>0,Imt=dmIm+ω(x)Ia+a(x)β1(x)H(x)IhSmμm(x)Im,xΩ,t>0,Sht=dhSh+Λ(x)a(x)β2(x)H(x)ImShμh(x)Sh,xΩ,t>0,Iht=dhIh+a(x)β2(x)H(x)ImShr(x)Ihμh(x)Ih,xΩ,t>0,Vt=θ(x)Ihδ(x)V,xΩ,t>0,Smn=Imn=Shn=Ihn=0,xΩ,t>0,Sa(x,0)=Sa0(x)0,Ia(x,0)=Ia0(x)0,xΩ,Sm(x,0)=Sm0(x)0,Im(x,0)=Im0(x)0,xΩ,Sh(x,0)=Sh0(x)0,Ih(x,0)=Ih0(x)0,V(x,0)=V0(x)0,xΩ, $ (2.3)

    where $ \rho(x) = ls\vartheta(x). $

    In this section, we will study the well-posedness of system (2.3). Let $ \mathbb{X}: = C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{7}) $ be the Banach space with the supremum norm $ \parallel \cdot\parallel $. Define $ \mathbb{X_{+}}: = C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}_{+}^{7}) $, then $ (\mathbb{X}, \; \mathbb{X_{+}}) $ is a strongly ordered Banach space. Let $ \mathbb{X}_{K} $ be the subset in $ \mathbb{X} $ defined by

    $ \mathbb{X}_{K}: = \left\{\phi = (\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}, \phi_{3}, \phi_{4}, \phi_{5}, \phi_{6}, \phi_{7})^{T} \in \mathbb{X}^{+}: 0\leq \phi_{1}(x)+\phi_{2}(x)\leq K(x), \; \forall \; x\in \bar{\Omega} \right\}. $

    In order to simplify notations, we set $ u = (u_{1}, u_{2}, u_{3}, u_{4}, u_{5}, u_{6}, u_{7})^{T} = (S_{a}, I_{a}, S_{m}, I_{m}, S_{h}, I_{h}, V)^{T} $, and the initial data satisfies $ u^{0} = (u_{1}^{0}, u_{2}^{0}, u_{3}^{0}, u_{4}^{0}, u_{5}^{0}, u_{6}^{0}, u_{7}^{0})^{T} = (S_{a0}, I_{a0}, S_{m0}, I_{m0}, S_{h0}, I_{h0}, V_{0})^{T} $. Throughout, for any $ w\in C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}) $, we denote $ \overline{w} : = \max\limits_{x\in\bar{\Omega}}w(x) $, $ \underline{w} : = \min\limits_{x\in\bar{\Omega}}w. $

    We define $ T_{i}(t), $ $ T_{j}(t), $ $ T_{5}(t), $ $ T_{6}(t), $ $ T_{7}(t) $ : $ C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R})\rightarrow C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}) $ as the $ C_{0} $ semigroups associated with

    $ -(\omega(\cdot)+\mu_{a}(\cdot)), \; d_{m}\triangle -\mu_{m}(\cdot), \; d_{h}\triangle -\mu_{h}(\cdot), \; d_{h}\triangle -(r (\cdot)+\mu_{h} (\cdot)), \; -\sigma(\cdot) $

    subject to the Neumann boundary condition, respectively, $ i = 1, \; 2, $ $ j = 3, \; 4. $ Then it follows that for any $ \psi\in C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}), \; t\geq 0 $,

    $ (Tk(t)ψ)(x)=ΩΓk(x,y,t)ψ(y)dy,k=1,2,3,4,5,6,7, $ (3.1)

    in which $ \Gamma_{i} $, $ \Gamma_{j} $, $ \Gamma_{6} $, $ \Gamma_{7} $ and $ \Gamma_{7} $ are the Green functions associated with

    $ -(\omega(\cdot)+\mu_{a}(\cdot)), \; d_{m}\triangle -\mu_{m}(\cdot), \; d_{h}\triangle -\mu_{h}(\cdot), \; d_{h}\triangle -(r (\cdot)+\mu_{h} (\cdot)), \; -\sigma(\cdot) $

    subject to the Neumann boundary condition, respectively, $ i = 1, \; 2, $ $ j = 3, \; 4. $

    It is well-known that for all $ t > 0 $ and $ k = 1, \; 2, \; 3, \; 4, \; 5, \; 6, 7, $ $ T_{k} $ is compact and strongly positive (see [30], Section 7.1 and Corollary 7.2.3). Moreover, $ T(t) = (T_{1}(t), \; T_{2}(t), \; T_{3}(t), \; T_{4}(t), \; T_{5}(t), \; T_{6}(t), \; T_{7}(t))^{T} $, $ t\geq 0, $ is a $ C_{0} $ semigroup. For $ \forall\; x\in\partial\Omega $ and $ u = (u_{1}, \; u_{2}, \; u_{3}, \; u_{4}, \; u_{5}, \; u_{6}, \; u_{7})^{T}\in\mathbb{X}_{K}, $ the nonlinear operator $ F = (F_{1}, \; F_{2}, \; F_{3}, \; F_{4}, \; F_{5}, \; F_{6}, \; F_{7})^{T} $ : $ \mathbb{X}_{K}\rightarrow \mathbb{X} $ is defined by

    $ {F1(u)(x)=ρ(x)(u3+u4)(1u1+u2K(x))βv(x)u1u7,F2(u)(x)=βv(x)u1u7,F3(u)(x)=ω(x)u1a(x)β1(x)H(x)u6u3,F4(u)(x)=ω(x)u2+a(x)β1(x)H(x)u6u3,F5(u)(x)=Λ(x)a(x)β2(x)H(x)u4u5,F6(u)(x)=a(x)β2(x)H(x)u4u5,F7(u)(x)=θ(x)u6. $ (3.2)

    Then system (2.3) can be rewritten as the following integral equation

    $ uk(t)=Ti(t)u0k+t0Γi(ts)Fk(u(,s))ds,k=1,2,3,4,5,6,7. $ (3.3)

    For any $ \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $ and $ h\geq 0 $, then we have

    $ ϕ+hF(ϕ)=[ϕ1+h(ρ(x)(ϕ3+ϕ4)(1ϕ1+ϕ2K(x))βv(x)ϕ1ϕ7)ϕ2+hβv(x)ϕ1ϕ7ϕ3+h(ω(x)ϕ1a(x)β1(x)H(x)ϕ6ϕ3)ϕ4+h(ω(x)ϕ2+a(x)β1(x)H(x)ϕ6ϕ3)ϕ5+h(Λ(x)a(x)β2(x)H(x)ϕ4ϕ5)ϕ6+ha(x)β2(x)H(x)ϕ4ϕ5ϕ7+hθ(x)ϕ6][ϕ1(1h¯βvϕ7)ϕ2ϕ3(1h¯a¯β1H_ϕ6)ϕ4ϕ5(1h¯a¯β2H_ϕ4)ϕ6ϕ7], $

    and

    $ K(x)(ϕ1+hF1(ϕ)+ϕ2+hF2(ϕ))=K(x)((ϕ1+ϕ2)+hρ(x)(ϕ3+ϕ4)(1ϕ1+ϕ2K(x)))=(K(x)(ϕ1+ϕ2))[1hρ(x)K(x)(ϕ3+ϕ4)]. $ (3.4)

    This means that

    $ \lim\limits_{h\rightarrow 0^{+}}\frac{1}{h}dist\left(\phi+hF(\phi), \; \mathbb{X}_{K} \right) = 0, \; \forall\; \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K}. $

    It then follows from Corollary 8.1.3 in [31] (see also Corollary 4 in [32]), we have the following result.

    Lemma 3.1. For every initial value function $ \phi\in \mathbb{X}_{K}, $ system (2.3) admits a unique mild solution, denoted by

    $ u(\cdot, t, \phi) = (S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; I_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; S_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; S_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; I_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi) , \; V(\cdot, t, \phi))^{T} $

    on its maximal existence interval $ [0, \; b_{\phi}) $ with $ u^{0} = \phi $, where $ b_{\phi}\leq \infty $.Moreover, $ u(\cdot, t, \phi)\in \mathbb{X}_{K} $ for $ \forall\; t\in (0, \; b_{\phi}) $ and $ u(\cdot, t, \phi) $ is a classical solution of system (2.3).

    Next, we will show that solutions of system (2.3) exist globally on $ [0, \; \infty) $, and admit a global compact attractor on $ \mathbb{X}_{K}. $

    Lemma 3.2. For every initial value function $ \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $, system (2.3) has a unique solution, denoted by

    $ u(\cdot, t, \phi) = (S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; I_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; S_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; S_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; I_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; V(\cdot, t, \phi))^{T} $

    on $ [0, \; \infty) $ with $ u^{0} = \phi $. Moreover, define the semiflow $ \Phi(t):\mathbb{X}_{K}\rightarrow \mathbb{X}_{K} $ associated withsystem (2.3) by

    $ \Phi(t)\phi = u(\cdot, t, \phi), \; \forall \phi = u^{0}\in \mathbb{X}_{K}, \; t\geq 0. $

    Then the semiflow $ \Phi(t):\mathbb{X}_{K}\rightarrow \mathbb{X}_{K} $ admits a global compact attractor on $ \mathbb{X}_{K}, \; \forall t\geq 0. $

    Proof. Clearly, for $ \forall\; \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $, we have $ 0\leq S_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi), \; I_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi)\leq H(\cdot) $ for all $ t \geq 0 $. The comparison principle ([30], Theorem 7.3.4) implies that $ S_{h}(x, t, \phi) $ and $ I_{h}(x, t, \phi) $ are uniformly bounded and ultimately bounded. It then follows from the seventh equation of (2.3) that

    $ V(x,t)tθ(x)H(x)δ(x)V(x,t),¯θ¯Hδ_V(x,t)t>0. $ (3.5)

    Thus, the comparison principle shows that $ V(\cdot, t, \phi) $ is uniformly bounded on $ [0, b_{\phi}) $, and

    $ limtV(x,t)¯θ¯Hδ_,uniformlyinx¯Ω. $ (3.6)

    More precisely, there exists a $ t_{1} > 0 $ such that

    $ V(\cdot, t)\leq 2\frac{\overline{\theta} \overline{H} }{\underline {\delta} }, \; \forall\; t\geq t_{1}. $

    Letting $ N_{1} = \max\left\{\max\limits_{t\in[0, t_{1}], \; x\in\bar{\Omega}}V(x, t), \; 2\frac{\overline{\theta} \overline{H} }{\underline {\delta} }\right\} < \infty $, we deduce

    $ V(x,t)N1forallxΩ,t>0. $ (3.7)

    Let $ A(x, t) = S_{a}(x, t)+I_{a}(x, t), $ $ M(x, t) = S_{m}(x, t)+I_{m}(x, t). $ Then it follows from the first four equations of (2.3) that $ (A(x, t), \; M(x, t)) $ satisfies

    $ {At=ρ(x)(1AK(x))M(ω(x)+μa(x))A,xΩ,t>0,Mt=dmM+ω(x)Aμm(x)M,xΩ,t>0,Mn=0,xΩ,t>0,A(x,0)=A0(x),M(x,0)=M0(x),xΩ, $ (3.8)

    where $ A _{0}(x) = \phi_{1}(x)+\phi_{2}(x), $ $ M_{0}(x) = \phi_{3}(x)+\phi_{4}(x) $. It is easy to see that there exists a positive vector $ \nu = (\nu_{1}, \; \nu_{2}): = \left(\overline{K}, \; \frac{f\overline{\omega}\overline{K}}{\underline {\mu_{m}}}\right) $ such that

    $ \rho(x) \left(1-\frac{\nu_{1}}{K(x)}\right)\nu_{2} -(\omega(x) +\mu_{a}(x))\nu_{1}\geq 0, \; \; \omega(x) \nu_{1} -\mu_{m}(x)\nu_{2}\leq 0. $

    Thus, $ \nu $ is an upper solution of (3.8). The comparison principle implies that solutions of (3.8) are uniformly bounded on $ [0, b_{\phi}) $. Hence, so are $ S_{a}(x, t), \; I_{a}(x, t) $, $ S_{m}(x, t) $ and $ I_{m}(x, t) $. Then, we can extend the local unique solution from Lemma 3.1 to global in time via a standard a priori estimates and continuation of local theory. That is, solutions of (2.3) exist on $ [0, \; \infty) $. Next, we show that $ S_{a}(x, t), \; I_{a}(x, t) $, $ S_{m}(x, t) $ and $ I_{m}(x, t) $ are ultimately bounded.

    From Lemma 3.1, we have $ S_{a}(x, t)+I_{a}(x, t)\leq \overline{K} $ for all $ x\in \bar{\Omega}, \; t\geq0 $. This implies that $ S_{a}(x, t) $ and $ I_{a}(x, t) $ are ultimately bounded and

    $ Sa(x,t)¯K,Ia(x,t)¯K,xˉΩ,t0. $ (3.9)

    It then follows from the third equation of (2.3) that

    $ {SmtdmSm+ω(x)¯Kμm(x)SmdmSm+¯ω¯Kμm_Sm,xΩ,t>0,Smn=0,xΩ,t>0,Sm(x,0)=ϕ3(x),xΩ. $ (3.10)

    Consider

    $ {Wt=dmW+¯ω¯Kμm_W,xΩ,t>0,Wn=0,xΩ,t>0,W(x,0)=ϕ3(x),xΩ. $ (3.11)

    From Lemma 1 in [29], $ \frac{\overline{\omega} \overline{K} }{\underline {\mu_m} } $ is a unique positive steady state that is globally attractive in $ C(\bar{\Omega}, \; R_{+}) $. Hence there exists $ t_{2}\geq 0 $ such that $ W(x, t)\leq 2 \frac{\overline{\omega} \overline{K} }{\underline {\mu_m} } $. By comparison principle, $ S_{m}(\cdot, t)\leq 2\frac{\overline{\omega} \overline{K} }{\underline {\mu_m} } $ when $ t > t_{2} $.

    Then,

    $ {ImtdmIm+¯ω¯K+2¯a¯β1¯ω¯Kμm_μm_Im,xΩ,t>t2,Imn=0,xΩ,t>t2,Im(x,t2):=Im2(x),xΩ. $ (3.12)

    Similarly, $ I_{m}(x, t) $ is ultimately bounded. More precisely, there exists a $ t_{3} > 0 $ such that $ I_{m}(\cdot, t)\leq \frac{2\overline{\omega}\overline{K}}{\underline {\mu_m}}\left(1+2 \frac{\overline{a} \overline{\beta_1} }{\underline {\mu_m} } \right), $ for $ \forall t > t_{3} $. Thus, we can obtain

    $ Im(,t)N2,fort0, $ (3.13)

    where $ N_{2} = \max\left\{\max\limits_{t\in[0, t_{3}], \; x\in\bar{\Omega}}I_{m}(x, t), \; \frac{2\overline{\omega}\overline{K}}{\underline {\mu_m}}\left(1+2 \frac{\overline{a} \overline{\beta_1} }{\underline {\mu_m} } \right)\right\} < \infty. $

    In addition, since the first two equations and the last equation of (2.3) have no diffusion term, the solution semiflow $ \Phi(t) $ is not compact. However, due to $ -\omega(x) -\mu_{a}(x) < 0, -\delta(x) < 0, \forall x\in\bar{\Omega}, $ using similar arguments from Theorem 4.1 in [33] (also Lemma 4.1 in [34] and Theorem 2.6 in [35]) that the semiflow $ \Phi(t):\mathbb{X}_{K}\rightarrow \mathbb{X}_{K} $ has a global compact attractor on $ \mathbb{X}_{K}, \; \forall t\geq 0. $ This completes the proof of Lemma 3.2.

    The following result shows that the solution of system (2.3) is strictly positive.

    Lemma 3.3. Let $ (S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi), I_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi), S_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi), I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi), S_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi), I_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi), V(\cdot, t, \phi))^{T} $ be the solution of system (2.3) with the initial value $ \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $. If there exists some $ t_{0}\geq 0 $ such that $ I_{a}(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, $ I_{m}(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, $ I_{h}(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, $ V(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, then the solution of system (2.3)satisfies

    $ Sa(x,t,ϕ)>0,Ia(x,t,ϕ)>0,Sm(x,t,ϕ)>0,Im(x,t,ϕ)>0,Sh(x,t,ϕ)>0,Ih(x,t,ϕ)>0,V(x,t,ϕ)>0,t>t0,xˉΩ. $

    Moreover, for any initial value $ \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $, there exists some positive constant $ \zeta_0 $ such that

    $ lim inftSh(x,t,ϕ)ζ0,uniformlyforxˉΩ. $ (3.14)

    Proof. For a give $ \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $, it is easy to see that $ I_{a}(x, t, \phi) $, $ I_{m}(x, t, \phi) $, $ I_{h}(x, t, \phi) $ and $ V(x, t, \phi) $ satisfy

    $ {Iat(¯ω+¯μa)Ia,xΩ,t>0,ImtdmIm¯μmIm,xΩ,t>0,IhtdhIh(¯r+¯μh)Ih,xΩ,t>0,Vt¯δV,xΩ,t>0,Ian=Imn=Ihn=Vn=0,xΩ. $

    If there exists some $ t_{0}\geq 0 $ such that $ I_{a}(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, $ I_{m}(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, $ I_{h}(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, $ V(\cdot, t_{0}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $, it then follows from the strong maximum principle (see Proposition 13.1 in [33]) that $ I_{a}(x, t, \phi) > 0, I_{m}(x, t, \phi) > 0, I_{h}(x, t, \phi) > 0, V(x, t, \phi) > 0, \; \; \forall \; t > t_{0}, \; x\in\bar{\Omega}. $

    Next, we will prove $ S_{a}(x, t, \phi) > 0, \; \forall t > t_{0}, \; x\in\bar{\Omega}. $ To this end, we first show $ A(x, t) = S_{a}(x, t)+I_{a}(x, t) < K(x) $ for all $ x\in \bar{\Omega}, \; t\geq0 $. If not, then there exists $ x_1\in \bar{\Omega}, \; t_1\geq0 $, such that $ A(x_1, t_1) = K(x_1) $. Since $ A(x, t) $ satisfies

    $ {At=ρ(x)(1AK(x))M(ω(x)+μa(x))A,xΩ,t>0,A(x,0)=A0(x),xΩ, $
    $ 0 = \frac{\partial A(x_1, t_1)}{\partial t} = \rho(x) \left(1-\frac{A(x_1, t_1)}{K(x_1)}\right)M(x_1, t_1) -(\omega(x_1) +\mu_{a}(x_1))A(x_1, t_1). $

    It implies that $ A(x_1, t_1) = 0 $. Then $ K(x_1) = 0 $ which contradicts that $ K(x) $ is strictly positive. So, $ S_{a}(x, t), I_{a}(x, t) < K(x) $ for all $ x\in \bar{\Omega}, \; t\geq0 $. Next, we show $ S_{a}(x, t, \phi) > 0, \; \forall t > t_{0}, \; x\in\bar{\Omega}. $ Suppose not, there exists $ x_2\in \bar{\Omega}, \; t_2 > t_{0} $, such that $ S_{a}(x_2, t_2) = 0 $. From the first equation of system (2.3), we have

    $ 0 = \frac{\partial S_{a}(x_2, t_2)}{\partial t} = \rho(x_2) (S_{m}(x_2, t_2)+I_{m}(x_2, t_2))\left(1-\frac{I_{a}(x_2, t_2)}{K(x_2)}\right) > 0. $

    It is contradictory. Thus, $ S_{a}(x, t, \phi) > 0, \; \forall t > t_{0}, \; x\in\bar{\Omega}. $ Similarly, we can show $ S_{m}(x, t, \phi) > 0, S_{h}(x, t, \phi) > 0, \; \forall t > t_{0}, \; x\in\bar{\Omega}. $

    Moreover, for a give $ \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $, it follows from the fifth equation of system (2.3) and (3.13) that $ S_{h}(x, t, \phi) $ satisfies

    $ {ShtdhSh+Λ_(¯a¯β2N2H_+¯μh)Sh,xΩ,t>0,Shn=0,xΩ. $

    According to the comparison principle, we have

    $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{h}(x, t, \phi)\geq \frac{\underline{\Lambda}}{\frac{\overline{a} \overline{\beta_2} N_{2}}{\underline{H} } +\overline{\mu_h}}, \; uniformly \; for \; x\in\bar{\Omega}. $

    This completes the proof of Lemma 3.3.

    One of the most important concepts in epidemiology is the basic reproduction number $ R_{0} $ which is a threshold index to determine the disease invasion. It is defined to be the average number of secondary cases produced in a completely susceptible population, by a typical infective individual, during its lifetime as infectious. By using the concept of next generation operators, Diekmann, Heesterbeek and Metz [36] presented a general approach to $ R_{0} $ for autonomous epidemic models. Van den Driessche and Watmough [37] gave a computation formula of $ R_{0} $ for compartmental models of ordinary differential equations with constant coefficients. For the reaction-diffusion system with spatially dependent coefficients, Wang and Zhao [38] defined the basic reproduction ratio as the spectral radius of the next infection operator. According to the above methods, in this section, in order to obtain the basic reproduction number, we should first find the disease free equilibrium (DFE) (infection-free steady state). System (2.3) admits two possible DFEs: $ E_{01}(x) = (0, 0, 0, 0, H(x), 0, 0) $ and $ E_{02}(x) = (A(x)^{*}, 0, M^{*}(x), 0, H(x), 0, 0). $ $ E_{01}(x) $ is characterized by the absence of mosquitoes. $ E_{02}(x) $ represents an eradication of Zika in the presence of mosquito population. Firstly, we give the basic offspring number which determines whether mosquito population persists, corresponds to the stability of $ E_{01}(x) $.

    Since $ (A(x, t), \; M(x, t)) $ satisfies system (3.8), it suffices to consider system (3.8). Obviously, system (3.8) always admits a DFE $ (0, 0). $ Linearizing system (3.8) at $ (0, 0), $ we have

    $ {At=ρ(x)M(ω(x)+μa(x))A,xΩ,t>0,Mt=dmM+ω(x)Aμm(x)M,xΩ,t>0,Mn=0,xΩ,t>0,A(x,0)=A0(x),M(x,0)=M0(x),xΩ. $ (4.1)

    The eigenvalue problem associated with (4.1) is as follows

    $ {ρ(x)ψ2(ω(x)+μa(x))ψ1=λ1ψ1,xΩ,dmψ2+ω(x)ψ1μm(x)ψ2=λ1ψ2,xΩ,ψ2n=0,xΩ, $ (4.2)

    where $ \psi_{1} $ and $ \psi_{2} $ are both positive for $ x\in\Omega $. Let $ B_{m} $ be defined as follows

    $ Bm=[(ω(x)+μa(x))ρ(x)ω(x)dmμm(x)]. $ (4.3)

    Denote the basic offspring number as $ R_{0}^{m} $. According to Lemma 4.2 in [38], $ \frac{1}{ R_{0}^{m}} $ is the unique positive eigenvalue of the eigenvalue problem

    $ {dmφ+μm(x)φ=λ2ω(x)ρ(x)ω(x)+μa(x)φ,xΩ,ϕn=0,xΩ. $ (4.4)

    By using the variational characterization of principal eigenvalue [39], we can obtain

    $ Rm0=supφH10(Ω),ϕ0{Ωω(x)ρ(x)ω(x)+μa(x)φ2Ωdm|φ|2+μm(x)φ2}. $ (4.5)

    By Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 in [40], we have the following observation.

    Lemma 4.1. Let $ \lambda_{m}^{*} = s(B_{m}) $ be the spectral bound of $ B_{m} $.

    (A1) If $ \lambda_{m}^{*}\geq 0, $ then $ \lambda_{m}^{*} $ is the principal eigenvalue of (4.2) with a strongly positive eigenfunction.

    (A2) $ R_{0}^{m}-1 $ and $ \lambda_{m}^{*} $ have the same sign.

    Let $ \mathbb{Y}_{K}: = \{(A_{0}, M_{0})^{T}\in C(\bar{\Omega}, \mathbb{R}_{+}^{2})\; :\; 0\leq A_{0}(x)\leq K(x)), \; \forall\; x\in \bar{\Omega} \} $. The following result is concerned with the global dynamics of system (3.8).

    Lemma 4.2. ([40], Lemma 2.5) Suppose that $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $.System (3.8) admits a unique steady state $ (A^{*}(x), M^{*}(x)) $ which is globally asymptotically stable in $ \mathbb{Y}_{K}\backslash \{(0, 0)\} $. Moreover, $ 0 < A^{*}(x) < K(x), \; \forall\; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Below we use the method proposed in Wang and Zhao [38] to introduce the basic reproduction number.

    This sub-section is devoted to formulate of the reproduction number for system (2.3) that determines invasion of Zika disease. So, it is the essential condition that guarantees the persistence of mosquito population. From Lemma 4.2, we assume that $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $, and then $ E_{02}(x) $ exists. Linearizing system (2.3) at $ E_{02}(x) $, and then considering only the equations of infective compartments, we have

    $ {Iat=βv(x)A(x)V(ω(x)+μa(x))Ia,xΩ,t>0,Imt=dmIm+ω(x)Ia+a(x)β1(x)M(x)H(x)Ihμm(x)Im,xΩ,t>0,Iht=dhIh+a(x)β2(x)Im(r(x)+μh(x))Ih,xΩ,t>0,Vt=θ(x)Ihδ(x)V,xΩ,t>0,Imn=Ihn=0,xΩ,t>0,Ia(x,0)=Ia0(x),Im(x,0)=Im0(x),Ih(x,0)=Ih0(x),V(x,0)=V0(x),xΩ. $ (4.6)

    Let $ \bar{T}(t) $ : $ C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4})\rightarrow C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4}) $ be the solution semigroup generated by system (4.6). It is easy to see that $ \bar{T}(t) $ is a positive $ C_{0} $ semigroup, and its generator $ B $ can be written as

    $ \begin{array}{lll} B = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} -(\omega(x) +\mu_{a}(x)) & 0 & 0 & \beta_{v}(x)A^{*}(x) \\ \omega(x) & d_{m}\triangle- \mu_{m}(x) & \frac{a(x)\beta_{1}(x)M^{*}(x)}{H(x)} & 0 \\ 0 & a(x)\beta_{2}(x) & d_{h}\triangle- (r(x)+\mu_{h}(x)) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \theta(x) & -\delta(x) \\ \end{array} \right]. \end{array} $

    Further, $ B $ is a closed and resolvent positive operator (see Theorem 3.12 in [41]). The eigenvalue problem associated with (4.6) is as follows

    $ {λ3φ1=βv(x)A(x)φ4(ω(x)+μa(x))φ1,xΩ,t>0,λ3φ2=dmφ2+ω(x)φ1+a(x)β1(x)M(x)H(x)φ3μm(x)φ2,xΩ,t>0,λ3φ3=dhφ3+a(x)β2(x)φ2(r(x)+μh(x))φ3,xΩ,t>0,λ3φ4=θ(x)φ3δ(x)φ4,xΩ,t>0,φ2n=φ3n=0,xΩ,t>0. $ (4.7)

    By a similar argument as Theorem 7.6.1 in [30], we have the following observation.

    Lemma 4.3. Let $ \lambda^{*} = s(B) $ be the spectral bound of $ B $. If $ \lambda^{*}\geq 0 $, then $ \lambda^{*} $ is the principal eigenvalue of the eigenvalue problem (4.7) with a strongly positive eigenfunction.

    In the following, we will use the ideas in [38] to define the basic reproduction number. Let $ \mathbb{T}(t)\; : $ $ C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4})\rightarrow C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4}) $ be the solution semigroup generated by the following linear system

    $ {Iat=(ω(x)+μa(x))Ia,xΩ,t>0,Imt=dmIm+ω(x)Iaμm(x)Im,xΩ,t>0,Iht=dhIh(r(x)+μh(x))Ih,xΩ,t>0,Vt=θ(x)Ihδ(x)V,xΩ,t>0,Imn=Ihn=0,xΩ,t>0,Ia(x,0)=Ia0(x),Im(x,0)=Im0(x),Ih(x,0)=Ih0(x),V(x,0)=V0(x),xΩ. $ (4.8)

    It is easy to see that $ \mathbb{T}(t) $ is a $ C_{0} $ semigroup on $ C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4}) $.

    We define

    $ \begin{array}{lll} \mathbb{F}(x) & = & \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & \beta_{v}(x)A^{*}(x) \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{a(x)\beta_{1}(x)M^{*}(x)}{H(x)} & 0 \\ 0 & a(x)\beta_{2}(x) & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right], \\ \mathbb{V}(x) & = & \left[ (ω(x)+μa(x))000ω(x)μm(x)0000(r(x)+μh(x))000θ(x)δ(x) \right]. \end{array} $

    In order to define the basic reproduction number for system (2.3), we assume that the state variables are near DFE $ E_{02} $, and introduce the distribution of initial infective individuals described by $ \phi(x)\in C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4}). $ Thus, it is easy to see that $ \mathbb{T}(t)\phi(x) $ represents the distribution of those infective individuals at time $ t $. Thus, $ \mathbb{F}(x)\mathbb{T}(t)\phi(x) $ represents the distribution of new infective individuals at time $ t $.

    Define $ \mathbb{L}\; :\; C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4})\rightarrow C(\bar{\Omega}, \; \mathbb{R}^{4}) $ as follows

    $ L(ϕ)(x):=0F(x)T(t)ϕ(x)dt. $ (4.9)

    It then follows that $ \mathbb{L}(\phi)(x) $ represents the distribution of the total new population generated by initial infective individuals $ \phi(x) $ during their infection period. So, $ \mathbb{L} $ is the next generation operator. We define the spectral radius of $ \mathbb{L} $ as the basic reproduction number of system (2.3). That is,

    $ R0:=r(L). $ (4.10)

    From [38], we have the following observation.

    Lemma 4.4. $ R_{0}-1 $ and $ \lambda ^{*} $ have the same sign.

    The following result indicates that basic offspring number $ R_{0}^m $ is a threshold index for eradication or persistence of the Zika disease.

    We firstly focus on the global dynamic behaviors of the DFEs $ E_{01} $ and $ E_{02} $ of system (2.3).

    Theorem 5.1. If $ R_{0}^{m} < 1 $, then the DFE $ E_{01}(x) $ is globally attractive in $ \mathbb{X}_{K} $ for system (2.3).

    Proof. Assume $ R_{0}^{m} < 1 $. It follows from Lemma 4.1 that $ \lambda_{m}^{*} > 0 $. $ \lambda_{m }^{*} $ is the principal eigenvalue of eigenvalue problem (4.2) with a strongly positive eigenfunction $ (\psi_{1}, \; \psi_{2}) $. Since $ (A(x, t), \; M(x, t)) $ satisfies system (3.8), it follows that

    $ {Atρ(x)M(ω(x)+μa(x))A,xΩ,t>0,Mt=dmM+ω(x)Aμm(x)M,xΩ,t>0,Mn=0,xΩ,t>0. $ (5.1)

    For any given $ \phi = (\phi_{1}, \phi_{2})\in \mathbb{Y}_{K} $, there exists some $ q > 0 $ such that

    $ (A(x, 0, \phi), \; M(x, 0, \phi))\leq q (\psi_{1}, \; \psi_{2}), \; \forall\; x\in \Omega. $

    Note that the linear system (4.1) admits a solution $ q e^{\lambda_{m}^{*} t }(\psi_{1}, \; \psi_{2}), \; \forall\; t\geq0 $. Then the comparison principle implies that

    $ (A(x, t, \phi), \; M(x, t, \phi))\leq q e^{\lambda_{m}^{*}t}(\psi_{1}, \; \psi_{2}), \; \forall\; t\geq0, \; \forall\; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Hence, $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }(A(x, t, \phi), M(x, t, \phi)) = (0, 0), $ uniformly for all $ x\in \bar{\Omega}. $ Then, from $ A(x, t) = S_{a}(x, t)+I_{a}(x, t) $ and $ M(x, t) = S_{m}(x, t)+I_{m}(x, t), $ together with positivity of solutions, for system (2.3), we have for every initial value function $ \phi = (\phi_{1}, \; \phi_{2}, \; \phi_{3}, \; \phi_{4}, \; \phi_{5}, \; \phi_{6}, \; \phi_{7})^{T} \in\mathbb{X}_{K} $,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{a}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; \; \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } I_{a}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; \; \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{m}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; \; \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } I_{m}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Then, $ S_{h}(\cdot, t) $ in system (2.3) is asymptotic to the following system

    $ {Sht=dhSh+Λ(x)μh(x)Sh,xΩ,t>0,Shn=0,xΩ,t>0,Sh(x,0)=ϕ5,xΩ. $ (5.2)

    By the theory for asymptotically autonomous semiflows (see Corollary 4.3 in [42]), together with Lemma 1 in [29], it follows that

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{h}(x, t, \phi) = H(x), \; uniformly \; for \; all\; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    Similarly, $ I_{h}(\cdot, t) $ in system (2.3) is asymptotic to the following system

    $ {Iht=dhIh(r(x)+μh(x))Ih,xΩ,t>0,Ihn=0,xΩ,t>0,Ih(x,0)=ϕ6,xΩ. $ (5.3)

    Therefore,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } I_{h}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    Then $ V(\cdot, t) $ in system (2.3) is asymptotic to the following system

    $ {V(x,t)t=δ(x)V(x,t),xΩ,t>0,V(x,0)=ϕ7,xΩ. $ (5.4)

    Thus,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }V(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    This completes the proof of Theorem 5.1.

    Remark 1. Biologically, Theorem 5.1 shows that the basic offspring number $ R_{0}^m $ can be used as a control parameter which determines whether mosquito population is absent or not. It means that mosquito population can be vanished, and the Zika virus will eradicate in human population and contaminated aquatic environment by reducing $ R_{0}^m $ below $ 1 $.

    Theorem 5.2. Let $ u(x, t, \phi) $ be the solution of system (2.3) with $ u(\cdot, 0, \phi) = \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $.If $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $, $ R_{0} < 1 $, then the DFE $ E_{02}(x) $ is globally attractive for system (2.3). That is, for any $ \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K} $, if $ (\phi_{1}, \phi_{3})\not\equiv (0, 0) $, then

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }u(x, t, \phi) = E_{02}(x), \; uniformly \; for \; all\; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Proof. Suppose $ R_{0} < 1 $. By Lemma 4.4, we have $ \lambda^{*} < 0 $. So, there exists a sufficiently small positive number $ \epsilon_{0} $ such that $ \lambda^{*}_{\epsilon_{0}} < 0 $, where $ \lambda^{*}_{\epsilon_{0}} < 0 $ is the principal eigenvalue of the following eigenvalue problem

    $ {λφϵ02=βv(x)(A(x)+ϵ0)φϵ07(ω(x)+μa(x))φϵ02,xΩ,t>0,λφϵ04=dmφϵ04+ω(x)φϵ02+a(x)β1(x)(M(x)+ϵ0)H(x)φϵ06μm(x)φϵ04,xΩ,t>0,λφϵ06=dhφϵ06+a(x)β2(x)φϵ04(r(x)+μh(x))φϵ06,xΩ,t>0,λφϵ07=θ(x)φϵ06δ(x)φϵ07,xΩ,t>0,φϵ04n=φϵ06n=0,xΩ,t>0, $ (5.5)

    with a strongly positive eigenfunction $ (\varphi_{2}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{4}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{6}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{7}^{\epsilon_{0}}) $. It follows from the condition $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $, Lemma 4.2 and the positivity of solutions that there exists a $ t_{0} > 0 $ such that

    $ S_{a}(x, t)\leq A^{*}(x)+\epsilon_{0}, \; \; S_{m}(x, t)\leq M^{*}(x)+\epsilon_{0}, $

    for all $ x\in\bar{\Omega} $, $ t\geq t_{0}. $ Hence, by the $ I_{a} $, $ I_{m} $, $ I_{h} $ and $ V $ equations of system (2.3), it follows that

    $ {Iatβv(x)(A(x)+ϵ0)V(ω(x)+μa(x))Ia,xΩ,tt0,ImtdmIm+ω(x)Ia+a(x)β1(x)(M(x)+ϵ0)H(x)Ihμm(x)Im,xΩ,tt0,IhtdhIh+a(x)β2(x)Im(r(x)+μh(x))Ih,xΩ,tt0,Vt=θ(x)Ihδ(x)V,xΩ,tt0,Imn=Ihn=0,xΩ,tt0. $ (5.6)

    For any given $ \phi \in \mathbb{X}_{K} $, there exists some $ q_{1} > 0 $ such that

    $ (I_{a}(x, t_0, \phi), \; I_{m}(x, t_0, \phi), \; I_{h}(x, t_0, \phi), \; V(x, t_0, \phi))\leq q_{1} ( \varphi_{2}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{4}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{6}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{7}^{\epsilon_{0}}), \; \forall\; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Note that the following linear system

    $ {Iat=βv(x)(A(x)+ϵ0)V(ω(x)+μa(x))Ia,xΩ,tt0,Imt=dmIm+ω(x)Ia+a(x)β1(x)(M(x)+ϵ0)H(x)Ihμm(x)Im,xΩ,tt0,Iht=dhIh+a(x)β2(x)Im(r(x)+μh(x))Ih,xΩ,tt0,Vt=θ(x)Ihδ(x)V,xΩ,tt0,Imn=Ihn=0,xΩ,tt0, $ (5.7)

    admits a solution $ q_{1} e^{\lambda_{\epsilon_{0}}^{*}(t-t_{0})}(\varphi_{2}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{4}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{6}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{7}^{\epsilon_{0}}), \; \forall\; t\geq t_{0}. $ Then the comparison principle implies that

    $ (I_{a}(x, t, \phi), \; I_{m}(x, t, \phi), \; I_{h}(x, t, \phi), \; V(x, t, \phi))\leq q_{1} e^{\lambda_{\epsilon_{0}}^{*}(t-t_{0})}( \varphi_{2}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{4}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{6}^{\epsilon_{0}}, \varphi_{7}^{\epsilon_{0}}), \; \forall\; t\geq t_{0}, \; \forall\; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Hence, $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }(I_{a}(x, t, \phi), \; I_{m}(x, t, \phi), \; I_{h}(x, t, \phi), \; V(x, t, \phi)) = (0, 0, 0, 0), $ uniformly for all $ x\in \bar{\Omega}. $ Then, $ (S_{a}(\cdot, t), S_{m}(\cdot, t)) $ in system (2.3) is asymptotic to system (3.8). By the theory for asymptotically autonomous semiflows, together with Lemma 1 in [29], it follows that

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }( S_{a}(x, t, \phi), \; S_{m}(x, t, \phi)) = (A^{*}(x), \; M^{*}(x)), \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    Similarly, $ S_{h}(\cdot, t) $ in system (2.3) is asymptotic to system (5.2). That is,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{h}(x, t, \phi) = H(x), \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    This completes the proof of Theorem 5.2.

    Remark 2. Biologically, Theorem 5.2 shows that mosquito population is present when the basic offspring number $ R_{0}^m > 1 $. Under this premise, the basic reproduction number $ R_{0} $ can be used as a control parameter which determines whether the disease will eventually die out or not. It means that the disease can be eradicated by reducing $ R_{0} $ below $ 1 $.

    Before giving the disease persistence, we first give the following lemma.

    Lemma 5.1. Suppose that $ R_m > 1, $ and $ \phi_i\equiv 0, i = 2, 4. $ If there exists some $ \zeta_1 > 0 $ such that

    $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}I_{h}(x, t, \phi)\geq \zeta_1, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega}, $

    then there exists some $ \zeta_2 > 0 $ such that

    $ lim inft+Sa(x,t,ϕ)ζ2,lim inft+Ia(x,t,ϕ)ζ2,lim inft+Sm(x,t,ϕ)ζ2,lim inft+Im(x,t,ϕ)ζ2,lim inft+Sh(x,t,ϕ)ζ2,lim inft+Ih(x,t,ϕ)ζ2,lim inft+V(x,t,ϕ)ζ2,uniformlyforallxˉΩ. $ (5.8)

    Proof. From $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}I_{h}(x, t, \phi)\geq \zeta_1, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega}, $ we have that there exists $ t_{11} > 0 $ such that

    $ I_{h}(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3}\zeta_1, \; \forall t\geq t_{11}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    It follows from the last equation of system (2.3) that $ V(x, t) $ satisfies

    $ {Vt13ζ1θ_¯δV,xΩ,tt11,Vn=0,xΩ. $

    By comparison principle, we have

    $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}V(x, t)\geq \frac{ \zeta_1 \underline{\theta}}{3\overline{\delta}}: = e_1 , \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Thus, there is a $ t_{12} > t_{11} $ such that

    $ V(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3 } e_1 , \; \forall t\geq t_{12}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Due to $ R_m > 1 $ and $ \phi_i\equiv 0, i = 2, 4, $ and from Lemma 4.2, we can obtain that there exists $ t_{13} > t_{12} $ such that

    $ S_a(x, t)+I_a(x, t)\leq A^*(x)+\frac{1}{3}(K(x)-A^*(x)) = \frac{1}{3} K(x)+\frac{2}{3}A^*(x), $
    $ S_m(x, t)+I_m(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3}M^*(x). $

    From the first equation of system (2.3) and (3.7), one has

    $ {Sat13M(x)ρ(x)(113K(x)+23A(x)K(x))(βv(x)N1+ω(x)+μa(x))Sa29M_ρ_(1¯AK_)(¯βvN1+¯ω+¯μa)Sa,xΩ,t>t13,San=0,xΩ. $

    Then, we can obtain

    $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}S_a(x, t)\geq \frac{ \frac{2}{9}\underline{M^*} \underline{\rho} \left(1-\frac{ \overline{ A^*}}{\underline{K}}\right) }{\overline{\beta_{v}} N_{1} +\overline{\omega} +\overline{\mu_{a}} }: = e_2 , \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Thus, there is a $ t_{14} > t_{13} $ such that

    $ S_a(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3 } e_2 , \; \forall t\geq t_{14}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    From the second equation of system (2.3), we have

    $ {Iatβv_×13e1×13e2(¯ω+¯μa)Ia,xΩ,tt14,Ian=0,xΩ. $

    Then

    $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}I_a(x, t)\geq \frac{\underline{\beta_{v}} e_1 e_2 }{9(\overline{\omega}+\overline{\mu_{a}}) }: = e_3 , \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega}, $

    which implies that there is a $ t_{15} > t_{14} $ such that

    $ I_a(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3 } e_3, \; \forall t\geq t_{15}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Similarly, it follows from the third and fourth equations of system (2.3) that

    $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}S_m(x, t)\geq \frac{f\underline{ \omega} e_2 }{3(\overline{b}\overline{\beta_1}+\overline{\mu_{m}}) }: = e_4 , \; \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}I_m(x, t)\geq \frac{f\underline{ \omega} e_3 }{3 \overline{\mu_{m}} }: = e_5 , \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    So, there is a $ t_{16} > t_{15} $ such that

    $ S_m(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3 } e_4, \; I_m(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3 } e_5, \; \forall t\geq t_{16}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    By Lemma 3.3, we know

    $ lim inftSh(x,t,ϕ)ζ0,uniformlyforxˉΩ. $

    Hence, there is a $ t_{17} > t_{16} $ such that

    $ S_h(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{3 }\zeta_0, \; \forall t\geq t_{17}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. $

    Therefore, letting $ \zeta_2 = \frac{1}{3}\max\{\zeta_0, \zeta_1, e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4, e_5\} $, we can obtain that (5.8) holds. This completes the proof of Lemma 5.1.

    Theorem 5.3. Let

    $ M0:={(Sa,Ia,Sm,Im,Sh,Ih,V)TXK:Ia()0,Im()0,Ih()0,V()0},M0:=XKM0. $

    If $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} > 1 $, then system (2.3) is uniformly persistent, i.e., and there is a constant $ \varsigma > 0 $ such that, for any initial value $ \phi\in\mathbb{M}_{0} $, we can obtain

    $ lim inft+Sa(x,t,ϕ)ς,lim inft+Ia(x,t,ϕ)ς,lim inft+Sm(x,t,ϕ)ς,lim inft+Im(x,t,ϕ)ς,lim inft+Sh(x,t,ϕ)ς,lim inft+Ih(x,t,ϕ)ς,lim inft+V(x,t,ϕ)ς,uniformlyforallxˉΩ. $ (5.9)

    Proof. The following four steps are taken to prove this result.

    Step I $ M_0 $ is invariant under $ \Psi(t). $

    For any initial value $ \phi\in M_0 $, from Lemma 3.3, we can obtain

    $ I_{a}(x, t, \phi) > 0, I_{m}(x, t, \phi) > 0, I_{h}(x, t, \phi) > 0, V(x, t, \phi) > 0, \; \; \forall \; t > 0, \; x\in\bar{\Omega}. $

    Then $ \Psi(t)\phi\in M_0. $ So $ M_0 $ is invariant under $ \Psi(t). $

    Step II For any $ \phi \in \partial M_0 $, one obtains the $ \omega- $ limit set $ \omega(\phi) $ = $ \{E_{01}\}\cup\{E_{02}\}, $ where $ \omega(\phi) $ is the omega limit set of the forward orbit $ \gamma^+: = \{\Psi(t)\phi:t\geq 0\}. $

    Define

    $ \Gamma_{\partial}: = \{\phi\in\partial M_0\; :\; \Psi(t)\phi\in\partial M_0, \forall \; t\geq0 \}. $

    For any given $ \phi\in\Gamma_{\partial} $, we have $ \Psi(t)\phi\in\partial M_0, \forall \; t\geq0. $ That is, for every $ t\geq0 $, we have

    $ I_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0\; or \; I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0\; or \; I_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0\; or \; V(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0. $

    We first consider the case $ I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0 $ for all $ t\geq0 $. From the sixth equation of system (2.3), we can get that $ I_{h}(x, t, \phi) $ satisfies system (5.3). Thus,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } I_{h}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; \rm{uniformly \; for \; all} \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    From the seventh equation of system (2.3), and according to Corollary 4.3 in [42], one has

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }V(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    Similarly, we can obtain

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }I_a(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    In addition, $ S_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi) $ in system (2.3) is asymptotic to system (5.2). Thus,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{h}(x, t, \phi) = H(x), \; uniformly \; for \; all\; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    In the case $ I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi)\not \equiv 0 $ for all $ t\geq0 $, $ S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) $ and $ S_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) $ are as follows.

    (i) $ S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0 $ and $ S_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0 $ for all $ t\geq0 $.

    (ii) $ S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0 $ for all $ t\geq0 $, and $ S_{m}(\cdot, t_{21}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $ for some $ t_{21} > 0. $

    In this case, from the third equation of system (2.3), we can get

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{m}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    (iii) $ S_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0 $ for all $ t\geq0 $, and $ S_{a}(\cdot, t_{22}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $ for some $ t_{22} > 0. $

    In this case, from the first equation of system (2.3), we can obatin

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{a}(x, t, \phi) = 0, \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    (iv) $ S_{a}(\cdot, t_{23}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $ and $ S_{m}(\cdot, t_{23}, \phi)\not\equiv 0 $ for some $ t_{23} > 0. $

    In this case, $ (S_{a}(x, t, \phi), S_{m}(x, t, \phi)) $ in system (2.3) is asymptotic to system (3.8). From Lemma 4.2, we have

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }( S_{a}(x, t, \phi), \; S_{m}(x, t, \phi)) = (A^{*}(x), \; M^{*}(x)), \; uniformly \; for \; all \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    Thus, we obtain $ \omega(\phi) $ = $ \{E_{01}\}\cup\{E_{02}\}. $

    Next, we assume $ I_{m}(\cdot, t_{24}, \phi)\not \equiv 0 $ for some $ t_{24} > 0. $ Form Lemma 4.2, one has $ I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) > 0 $ for all $ t > t_{24}. $ Then, we get

    $ I_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0\; or \; I_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0\; or \; V(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0, \; for\; all \; t > t_{24}. $

    Here, we only show the case $ I_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0 $ for all $ t > t_{24} $. It follows from the second equation of system (2.3) that

    $ S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0\; or \; V(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0, \; for\; all \; t > t_{24}. $

    If $ S_{a}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0, \; for\; all \; t > t_{24}, $ then, from the first equation of system (2.3), we have $ I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0, \; for\; all \; t > t_{24}, $ which contradicts our assumption.

    If $ V(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0, \; for\; all \; t > t_{24}, $ then, from the sixth equation of system (2.3), one has $ I_{m}(\cdot, t, \phi) \equiv 0, \; for\; all \; t > t_{24}, $ which contradicts our assumption. Thus, the step II is proved.

    Step III $ W^s(\{E_{01}(x)\})\cap M_0 = \emptyset $ and $ W^s(\{E_{02}(x)\})\cap M_0 = \emptyset $. In this step, we will show the following two claims.

    $ Claim 1 $ $ E_{01}(x) $ is a uniform weak repeller for $ M_0. $ That is, there exists $ \varepsilon_1 > 0 $ such that

    $ lim supt+ $ (5.10)

    $ Claim 2 $ $ E_{02}(x) $ is a uniform weak repeller for $ M_0. $ That is, there exists $ \varepsilon_2 > 0 $ such that

    $ \begin{eqnarray} \begin{aligned} \limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}\|\Psi(t)\phi- E_{02}(x)\|\geq \varepsilon_2, \; for\; all\; \phi\in M_0. \end{aligned} \end{eqnarray} $ (5.11)

    Here, we just prove $ Claim 1 $. $ Claim 2 $ can be similarly proven.

    If (5.10) does not hold, then

    $ \begin{eqnarray} \begin{aligned} \limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}\|\Psi(t)\tilde{\phi}- E_{01}(x)\| < \varepsilon_1, \; for\; some\; \tilde{\phi}\in M_0. \end{aligned} \end{eqnarray} $ (5.12)

    That is, there exists $ t_{25} > 0 $ such that

    $ \begin{eqnarray} \begin{aligned} &0 < S_a(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) < \varepsilon_1, \; 0 < I_a(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) < \varepsilon_1, \; 0 < S_m(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) < \varepsilon_1, \; 0 < I_m(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) < \varepsilon_1, \\ &H(x)-\varepsilon_1 < S_h(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) < H(x)+\varepsilon_1, \; 0 < I_h(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) < \varepsilon_1, \; 0 < V(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) < \varepsilon_1, \; for\; \forall\; t\geq t_{25}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega}. \end{aligned} \end{eqnarray} $ (5.13)

    Thus, $ S_a(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) $ and $ S_m(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) $ satisfy

    $ \begin{eqnarray*} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\frac{\partial S_a}{\partial t}\geq \rho(x)\left( 1-\frac{2\varepsilon_1}{K(x)}\right)S_m -(\beta_v(x)\varepsilon_1+ \omega(x) +\mu_{a}(x))S_a, \; &x\in\Omega, \; t\geq t_{25}, \\ &\frac{\partial S_m}{\partial t}\geq d_{m}\triangle S_m+ \omega(x)S_a -\left(\mu_{m}(x)+ \frac{\alpha(x)\beta_1(x)}{H(x)}\varepsilon_1\right)S_m, \; &x\in\Omega, \; t\geq t_{25}, \\ &\frac{\partial M}{\partial n} = 0, \; &x\in\partial\Omega, \; t\geq t_{25}.\\ \end{aligned} \right. \end{eqnarray*} $

    Consider the following auxiliary linear system

    $ \begin{eqnarray} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\frac{\partial \nu}{\partial t} = \tilde{B}_m(\varepsilon_1)\nu, \; &x\in\Omega, \; t\geq t_{25}, \\ &\frac{\partial \nu_2}{\partial n} = 0, \; &x\in\partial\Omega, \; t\geq t_{25}, \\ \end{aligned} \right. \end{eqnarray} $ (5.14)

    where $ \nu = (\nu_1, \nu_2)^T $, and

    $ \begin{eqnarray*} \tilde{B}_{m}(\varepsilon_1) = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -(\beta_v(x)\varepsilon_1+ \omega(x) +\mu_{a}(x)) & \rho(x)\left( 1-\frac{2\varepsilon_1}{K(x)}\right) \\ \omega(x) & d_{m}\triangle-\left(\mu_{m}(x)+ \frac{\alpha(x)\beta_1(x)}{H(x)}\varepsilon_1\right) \\ \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray*} $

    We know $ \tilde{B}_{m}(0) = B_m $, where $ B_m $ is defined by (4.3). From Lemma 4.1, if $ R_{0}^{m} > 1, $ then $ \lambda_m^* = s(B_m) > 0. $ $ \tilde{B}_{m}(\varepsilon_1) $ is continuous for small $ \varepsilon_1 $. So, when $ \varepsilon_1 $ is small enough, we have $ s(\tilde{B}_{m}(\varepsilon_1)) > 0. $ Denote $ \lambda_{m\varepsilon_1}^*: = s(\tilde{B}_{m}(\varepsilon_1)) $. Obviously, $ \lambda_{m\varepsilon_1}^* > 0 $.

    Let $ (\tilde{\varphi}_1, \tilde{\varphi}_2) $ be the positive eigenfunction corresponding to $ \lambda_{m\varepsilon_1}^* $. Then auxiliary system (5.14) admits a solution $ (\nu_1(x, t), \nu_2(x, t)) = e^{\lambda_{m\varepsilon_1}^*}(\tilde{\varphi}_1, \tilde{\varphi}_2) $. Due to $ S_a(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) > 0 $, $ S_m(x, t, \tilde{\phi}) > 0 $ for $ \forall\; t\geq t_{25}, $ there exists $ \varrho_1 > 0 $ such that

    $ (S_a(x, t_{25}, \tilde{\phi}), S_m(x, t_{25}, \tilde{\phi}))\geq \varrho_1 (\tilde{\varphi}_1, \tilde{\varphi}_2). $

    According to the comparison principle, we can obtain

    $ (S_a(x, t, \tilde{\phi}), S_m(x, t, \tilde{\phi}))\geq \varrho_1 e^{\lambda_{m\varepsilon_1}^*(t-t_{25})}(\tilde{\varphi}_1, \tilde{\varphi}_2), \; for\; \forall\; t\geq t_{25}, \; x\in \bar{\Omega} . $

    Since $ \lambda_{m\varepsilon_1}^* > 0 $, we get

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{a}(\cdot, t, \tilde{\phi}) = +\infty, \; \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty } S_{m}(\cdot, t, \tilde{\phi}) = +\infty, $

    which contradicts with (5.13).

    The above discussion implies that $ \{E_{01}(x)\} $ and $ \{E_{02}(x)\} $ are isolated invariant sets in $ M_0 $, and $ W^s(\{E_{01}(x)\})\cap M_0 = \emptyset $, $ W^s(\{E_{02}(x)\})\cap M_0 = \emptyset $. Clearly, every orbit in $ \Gamma_{\partial} $ converges to either $ E_{01}(x) $ or $ E_{02}(x) $, and there are no subsets of $ \{ E_{01}(x), E_{02}(x)\} $ forms a cycle in $ \Gamma_{\partial} $. From Theorem 4.1 in [43], system (2.3) is uniformly persistent if $ R^m_{0} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} > 1 $.

    Step IV Define a continues function $ \bf{g}:\; \mathbb{X}_{K}\rightarrow [0, +\infty) $ with

    $ \bf{g}(\phi): = \min\left\{\min\limits_{x\in\bar{\Omega}}\phi_2(x), \min\limits_{x\in\bar{\Omega}}\phi_4(x), \min\limits_{x\in\bar{\Omega}}\phi_6(x), \min\limits_{x\in\bar{\Omega}}\phi_7(x)\right\}, \; \forall\; \phi\in\mathbb{X}_{K}. $

    It follows from Lemma 3.3 that $ \bf{g}^{-1}(0, +\infty)\subseteq M_0. $ If $ \bf{g}(\phi) > 0 $, or $ \phi\in M_0 $ with $ \bf{g}(\phi) = 0 $, then $ \bf{g}(\Psi(t)\phi) > 0 $, $ \forall\; t > 0 $. That is, $ \bf{g} $ is a generalized distance fuction for the semiflow $ \Psi(t) $ (see [44]). From Lemma 3.2 and according to Theorem 3 in [44], there exists a $ \varrho_2 > 0 $ such that

    $ \min\limits_{\psi\in \omega(\phi)} > \varrho_2, \; \forall\; \phi\in M_0. $

    Thus, $ \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow +\infty}I_{h}(\cdot, t, \phi)\geq \varrho_2, \forall\; \phi\in M_0. $ From Lemma 5.1, there exists some $ \varsigma > 0 $ such that (5.9) holds. This completes the proof.

    Remark 3. Biologically, Theorem 5.3 shows that mosquito population and the disease will persist when the basic offspring number $ R_{0}^m > 1 $ and basic reproduction number $ R_{0} > 1 $.

    In this section, we implement numerical simulations to confirm the analytic results. For the sake of convenience, we concentrate on one dimensional domain $ \Omega $, which can be taken, without loss of generality, to be $ (0, \pi) $. For the sake of simplicity, we focus on model (2.3) and fix some coefficients and functions as follows: $ H(x) = 100 $, $ K(x) = 500 $, $ \vartheta(x) = 5 $, $ l = 1/2 $, $ \omega(x) = 0.05 $, $ \mu_{a}(x) = 0.15 $, $ \mu_{m}(x) = 0.05 $, $ \mu_{h}(x) = \frac{1}{75\times365} $, $ \Lambda(x) = H(x)\times\mu_{h}(x) $, $ r(x) = \frac{1}{7} $, $ a(x) = 0.3 $, $ \theta(x) = 0.1 $, $ \delta(x) = 0.3 $, $ d_m = 0.01, $ $ d_h = 0.1, $

    $ \beta_{1}(x) = 0.12(1+\cos(2x)), \; \; \; \beta_{2}(x) = 0.15(1+\cos(2x)). $

    We set initial data

    $ \begin{eqnarray} \begin{aligned} &S_a(x, 0) = 200+\sin(x)-200\cos(4x), \; I_a(x, 0) = 5+0.1\sin(x)-5\cos(4x), \\ &S_h(x, 0) = 21+0.5\sin(x)-20\cos(4x), \; I_h(x, 0) = 0.5+0.01\sin(x)-0.5\cos(4x), \\ &S_m(x, 0) = \omega(x)S_a(x, 0), \; \; I_m(x, 0) = \omega(x)I_a(x, 0), \; \; V(x, 0) = \theta(x) I_{h}(x, 0), \; x\in(0, \pi). \end{aligned} \end{eqnarray} $ (6.1)

    Next, we will change the parameters $ s $ and $ \beta_v(x) $ and then observe the longtime behavior of the solution to model (2.3).

    Example 6.1. Choose $ s = 0.04 $ and $ \beta_{v}(x) = 0.00035(1+\cos(2x)) $. It follows from (4.5) that $ R_{0}^{m} = 0.52 < 1. $ Theorem 5.1 shows that the disease free equilibrium $ E_{01}(x) $ is globally attractive when $ R_{0}^{m} < 1 $. We can confirm this in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows that the evolutions of $ S_{a}(x, t), S_{m}(x, t), I_{a}(x, t), I_{m}(x, t), I_{h}(x, t), V(x, t) $ decay to zero. Biologically, mosquito population will vanish, and Zika virus will eradicate in human population and contaminated aquatic environment.

    Figure 2.  The evolution diagram of numerical solutions of model (2.3) for $ R_{0}^{m} < 1 $. Diagrams (a)-(f) show that the evolutions of $ S_{a}(x, t), S_{m}(x, t), I_{a}(x, t), I_{m}(x, t), I_{h}(x, t), V(x, t) $ decay to zero. It mean that mosquito population will vanish, and Zika virus will eradicate in human population and contaminated aquatic environment.

    Example 6.2. Choose $ s = 0.4 $ and $ \beta_{v}(x) = 0.00035(1+\cos(2x)) $. It follows from (4.5) that $ R_{0}^{m} = 5 > 1 $. According to the method of calculating the regeneration numbers in [38], we can get $ R_{0} = 0.98 < 1 $. Theorem 5.2 shows that the disease free equilibrium $ E_{02}(x) $ is globally attractive when $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} < 1 $. We can confirm this in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows that the evolutions of $ S_{a}(x, t), S_{m}(x, t) $ tend to steady state $ A^*(x), M^*(x) $, and the evolutions of diseased compartments $ I_{a}(x, t), I_{m}(x, t), I_{h}(x, t), V(x, t) $ decay to zero. Biologically, mosquito population is present, and Zika virus will eradicate in mosquito population, human population and contaminated aquatic environment.

    Figure 3.  The evolution diagram of numerical solutions of model (2.3) for $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} < 1 $. Diagrams (a) and (b) show that the evolutions of $ S_{a}(x, t), S_{m}(x, t) $ tend to steady state $ A^*(x), M^*(x) $, respectively. Diagrams (c)–(f) show that the evolutions of diseased compartments $ I_{a}(x, t), I_{m}(x, t), I_{h}(x, t), V(x, t) $ decay to zero. It mean that mosquito population is present, and Zika virus will eradicate in mosquito population, human population and contaminated aquatic environment.

    Example 6.3. Choose $ s = 0.4 $ and $ \beta_{v}(x) = 0.035(1+\cos(2x)) $. It follows from (4.5) that $ R_{0}^{m} = 5 > 1 $. According to the method of calculating the regeneration numbers in [38], we can get $ R_{0} = 2.8 > 1 $. Theorem 5.3 shows that system (2.3) is uniformly persistent when $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} > 1 $. We can confirm this in Figure 4. Figure 4 shows that the evolutions of $ S_{a}(x, t), S_{m}(x, t) $, $ I_{a}(x, t), I_{m}(x, t), I_{h}(x, t), V(x, t) $ keep positive. Biologically, mosquito population is present, and Zika virus will persist in mosquito population, human population and contaminated aquatic environment.

    Figure 4.  The evolution diagram of numerical solutions of model (2.3) for $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} > 1 $. Diagrams (a)–(f) show that the evolutions of $ S_{a}(x, t), S_{m}(x, t) $, $ I_{a}(x, t), I_{m}(x, t), I_{h}(x, t), V(x, t) $ keep positive. It mean that mosquito population is present, and Zika virus will persist in mosquito population, human population and contaminated aquatic environment.

    The main contribution of this study, based on experimental proving evidence [25], is that we propose a new Zika model by introducing the environment transmission route in a spatial heterogeneous environment. In contrast to [12,14,24], we consider environment transmission (human-environment-mosquito-human) route in Zika model. From Figures 3 and 4, we can get that increasing environment transmission rate $ \beta_{v}(x) $ can induce the outbreak of Zika. Therefore, the environment transmission route is indispensable. Our work is an extension of previous mathematical Zika models that the transmission of Zika virus involves both mosquito-borne transmission (human-mosquito-human) routes [12,14,24]. In fact, environmental transmission route in our model is similar to other waterborne disease models, such as cholera [45]. So, our model analysis can also be applied to other waterborne diseases.

    We derive a biologically meaningful threshold indexes, the basic offspring number $ R_{0}^{m} $ and basic reproduction number $ R_{0} $ by the theory developed by Wang and Zhao [38], which is characterized as the spectral radius of the next generation operator. Then, we prove that if $ R_{0}^{m} < 1 $, then both mosquitoes and Zika virus will become vanish. If $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} < 1 $, then mosquitoes will persist and Zika virus will die out. If $ R_{0}^{m} > 1 $ and $ R_{0} > 1 $, then mosquitoes and Zika virus are persistent presences. Finally, numerical simulations conform these results.

    Our current study has some limitations. In our model, we do not consider sexual transmission route, but it is indeed an important route of spreading of Zika virus [46]. Future, we will study a Zika model which incorporates mosquito-borne transmission, sexual transmission and environment transmission threes routes. In addition, in our model, we assume same diffusive coefficients $ d_m $ for both $ S_m $ and $ I_m $, same $ d_h $ for all of $ S_h $, $ I_h $ and $ R_h $. However, due to mobility for $ S_m $ and $ I_m $, $ S_h $, $ I_h $ and $ R_h $ is different, studies of different diffusion coefficients have more realistic implications. Yin [47] studied a mathematical model for an infectious disease such as Cholera with different diffusion coefficients. By the delicate theory of elliptic and parabolic equations, global asymptotic behavior of the solution was obtained. This work makes progress toward the case of different diffusive coefficients. Therefore, it motivates us to consider different diffusive coefficients into our model. We leave it for future investigation.

    The work is partially supported by the Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of Anhui Polytechnic University (No. 2020YQQ069), Pre-Research National Natural Science Foundation of China of Anhui Polytechnic University (No. Xjky2020134), and Joint Special Funds for Basic Research in Local Undergraduate Universities (Part) of Yunnan Province of China (Nos 2018FH001-113).

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    [1] Callaghan WM, MacDorman MF, Rasmussen SA, et al. (2006) The contribution of preterm birth to infant mortality rates in the United States. Pediatrics 118:1566-1573. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0860
    [2] U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013) Preterm Birth. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/PretermBirth.htm.
    [3] Berkowitz GS, Papiernik E. (1993) Epidemiology of preterm birth. Epidemiol. Rev.15 :414-443.
    [4] Institute of Medicine. (1985) Preventing low birthweight. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
    [5] March of Dimes. (2012) 2012 Premature Birth Report Card. Available from: http://www.marchofdimes.com/peristats/pdflib/998/us.pdf.
    [6] March of Dimes. (2014) 2014 Premature Birth Report Card. Available from: http://www.marchofdimes.org/materials/premature-birth-report-card-united-states.pdf.
    [7] Ritz B, Yu F, Chapa G, et al. (2000) Effect of Air Pollution on Preterm Birth among Children Born in Southern California between 1989 and 1993. Epidemiology 11:502-511. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00004
    [8] Kyrklund-Blomberg NB, Granath F, Cnattingius S. (2005) Maternal smoking and causes of very preterm birth. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 84:572-577.
    [9] Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR. (2001) The Returns to Increasing Body Weight. Penn Institute For Economic Research, PIER Working Paper 01-052. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=297919 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.297919.
    [10] Collins JW, David RJ, Simon DM, et al. (2007) Preterm birth among African American and white women with a lifelong residence in high-income Chicago neighborhoods: an exploratory study. Ethnic. Dis. 17: 113-117.
    [11] Kramer MR, Hogue CR. (2009) What causes racial disparities in very preterm birth? A biosocial perspective. Epidemiol. Rev. 31: 84-98
    [12] Darrow LA, Strickland MJ, Klein M., et al. (2009) Seasonality of birth and implications for temporal studies of preterm birth. Epidemiology 20:699-706.
    [13] Miranda ML, Messer LC, Kroeger GL. (2012) Associations between the Quality of the Residential Built Environment and Pregnancy Outcomes among Women in North Carolina. Environ. Health Perspect. 120:471-477.
    [14] Shi X, Ayotte JD, Onda A, et al. (2015) Geospatial association between adverse birth outcomes and arsenic in groundwater in New Hampshire, USA. Environ. Geochem. Health 37 :333-351.
    [15] Pickett KE, Pearl M (2001) Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J. Epidemiol. Commun. H.55:111-122.
    [16] Herrick H. (1996) The association of poverty and residence in predominantly Black neighborhoods with the occurrence of preterm births among Black women: a case-control study of three North Carolina metropolitan areas. Vol. 99, Special Report by the State Center for Health and Environmental Statistics. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
    [17] Roberts, EM. (1997) Neighborhood social environments and the distribution of low birthweight in Chicago. Am. J. Public Health 87:597-603.
    [18] Kaufman JS, Dole N, Savitz DA, et al. (2003) Modeling community-level effects on preterm birth. Ann. Epidemiol.13:377-384.
    [19] DeFranco EA, Lian M, Muglia LA, et al. (2008) Area-level poverty and preterm birth risk: a population-based multilevel analysis. BMC Public Health 8:316-316. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-316
    [20] O'Campo P, Xue X, Wang MC, et al. (1997) Neighborhood risk factors for low birthweight in Baltimore: a multilevel analysis. Am. J. Public Health 87 :1113-8.
    [21] Duncan C, Jones K, Moon G. (1998) Context, composition and heterogeneity: Using multilevel models in health research. Soc. Sci. Med. 46:97-117. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00148-2
    [22] Merlo J. (2003) Multilevel Analytical Approaches in Social Epidemiology: Measures of Health Variation Compared with Traditional Measures of Association. J. Epidemiol. Commun. H. 57:550-552.
    [23] Behrman, RE, Butler AS. (2007) Preterm birth: causes, consequences, and prevention., Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: Washington, D.C. : National Academies Press.
    [24] Bahl R, Martines J, Bhandari N, et al. (2012) Setting research priorities to reduce global mortality from preterm birth and low birth weight by 2015. J. Glob. Health 2 :10403-10403.
    [25] ShionoPH, Klebanoff MA. (1993) A review of risk scoring for preterm birth. Clin. Perinatol. 20:107-125.
    [26] Public Health Foundation. (1995). Measuring state expenditures for core public health functions. Am. J. Prev. Med. 11: 58-73.
    [27] Ren, X. (2013). Investigating the association of preterm birth and residential stability in Georgia. Emory University Master's Thesis. Available from: https://etd.library.emory.edu/view/record/pid/emory:dwfsq
    [28] Messina LC. (2012). Investigating the association between small-area violent crime and preterm birth in Atlanta, GA: 1998-2006.Emory University Master's Thesis. Available from: https://etd.library.emory.edu/view/record/pid/emory:bqjsm.
    [29] Tu W, Tu J, Tedders S. (2014). Estimating Neighborhood-level Socio-Economic Effect on Preterm Births Using a Multilevel Approach: A Case Study of Georgia, USA. Ann. GIS 20:181-191. doi: 10.1080/19475683.2014.945483
    [30] English PB, Kharrazi M, Davies S, et al. (2003) Changes in the spatial pattern of low birth weight in a southern California county: the role of individual and neighborhood level factors. Soc. Sci. Med. 56: 2073-2088. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00202-2
    [31] Messer LC, Laraia BA, Kaufman JS, et al. (2006) The development of a standardized neighborhood deprivation index. J. Urban Health 83:1041-1062. doi: 10.1007/s11524-006-9094-x
    [32] Sanagou M, Wolfe R, Forbes A, et al. (2012) Hospital-level associations with 30-day patient mortality after cardiac surgery: a tutorial on the application and interpretation of marginal and multilevel logistic regression. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12:28-28.
    [33] Larsen K, Merlo J. (2005) Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. American Journal Of Epidemiology 161:81-88.Rauh VA, Andrews HF, Garfinkel RS. (2001) The Contribution of Maternal Age to Racial Disparities in Birthweight: A Multilevel Perspective. Am. J. Public Health 91: 1815-1824.
    [34] Collins J, Rankin K, David R. (2011) Low Birth Weight Across Generations: The Effect of Economic Environment. Matern. Child Healt. J. 15: 438-445. doi: 10.1007/s10995-010-0603-x
    [35] Kearns R, Moon R.(2002) From medical to health geography: novelty, place and theory after a decade of change. Pro. Hum. Geog. 26: 605-625.
    [36] Gelman A, Hill J. (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Analytical methods for social research. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [37] Demidenko EZ. (2004) Mixed models : theory and applications, Wiley series in probability and statistics: Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley.
    [38] Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. (2012) Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling: Los Angeles; London: SAGE, 2nd ed.
    [39] R Core Team. 2013. "R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing." http://www.r-project.org/.
    [40] Goldstein H, Browne W, Rasbash J. (2002) Partitioning Variation in Multilevel Models. Understanding Statistics 1: 223-232. doi: 10.1207/S15328031US0104_02
    [41] Merlo, J., Chaix B, Ohlsson H, et al. (2006) A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J. Epidemiol. Commun. 60:290-297.
    [42] Merlo, J., Yang M, Chaix B, et al. (2005) A brief conceptual tutorial on multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: investigating contextual phenomena in different groups of people J. Epidemiol. Commun. 59: 729-736. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.023929
    [43] Akaike H. (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19:716-723. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
    [44] Geronimus AT, Bound J, Neidert LJ. (1996) On the validity of using census geocode characteristics to proxy individual socioeconomic characteristics. J Am Stat Ass 91: 529-537. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1996.10476918
    [45] Kwan MP. (2012) The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 102: 958-968.
    [46] Wang FH, Guo DS, McLafferty S. (2012) Constructing geographic areas for cancer data analysis: A case study on late-stage breast cancer risk in Illinois. Appl. Geogr. 35:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.04.005
    [47] Shi W. (2010) Principles of modeling uncertainties in spatial data and analyses." Boca Raton FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
    [48] Subramanian S, Chen JT, Rehkopf DH, et al. (2006) Comparing individual- and area-based socioeconomic measures for the surveillance of health disparities: a multilevel analysis of Massachusetts births, 1989–1991. Am. J. Epidemiol. 164:823-834.
    [49] Cubbin C, Marchi K, Lin M, et al. (2008) Is neighborhood deprivation independently associated with maternal and infant health? Evidence from Florida and Washington. Matern. Child Healt. J. 12:61-74.
    [50] Behrman BE, Butler AS. (2007) Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
    [51] Quesada O, Gotman N, Howell HB, et al. (2012) Prenatal hazardous substance use and adverse birth outcomes. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 25: 1222-1227. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2011.602143
    [52] Llop S1, Ballester F, Estarlich M, et al. (2010). Preterm birth and exposure to air pollutants during pregnancy. Environ. Res. 110: 778-85. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2010.09.009
    [53] Partridge S, Balayla J, Holcroft CA, et al. (2012) Inadequate prenatal care utilization and risks of infant mortality and poor birth outcome: a retrospective analysis of 28,729,765 U.S. deliveries over 8 years. Am. J. Perinat. 29:787-793.
    [54] Ma X. (2013) Food Environment and Birth Outcomes In University of South Carolina. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/2330
    [55] Daniel M, Moore S, Kestens Y. (2008) Framing the biosocial pathways underlying associations between place and cardiometabolic disease. Health & Place 14:117–132.
    [56] Meng G, Thompson ME, Hall GB. (2013) Pathways of neighborhood-level socio-economic determinants of adverse birth outcomes. Int. J. Health Geogr. 12: 32. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-12-32 doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-12-32
    [57] Townsend P, Davidson N, Whitehead M. (1992) Inequalities in Health: the Black Report and the Health Divide. New York: Penguin.
    [58] Richmond ME. (1917) Social diagnosis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    [59] Moellering H, Tobler W. (1972) Geographical Variances. Geogr. Anal. 4:34-50.
    [60] Jones K. (1991). Specifying and Estimating Multi-Level Models for Geographical Research. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2:148-159.
    [61] Robinson WS. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am. Sociol. Rev. 15:351-357. doi: 10.2307/2087176
    [62] Macintyre S,Ellaway A, Cummins S. (2002). Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Soc. Sci. Med. 55:125-139. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00214-3
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Xing Zhang, Hongwei Yang, Yingdong Jia, Zhengwen Xu, Liuping Zhang, Meng Sun, Jing Fu, circRNA_0005529 facilitates growth and metastasis of gastric cancer via regulating miR-527/Sp1 axis, 2021, 22, 2661-8850, 10.1186/s12860-020-00340-8
    2. Qingjie Xian, Ronglei Zhao, Juanjuan Fu, MicroRNA-527 Induces Proliferation and Cell Cycle in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells by Repressing PH Domain Leucine-Rich-Repeats Protein Phosphatase 2, 2020, 18, 1559-3258, 155932582092868, 10.1177/1559325820928687
    3. Kei Nomura, Akira Kitanaka, Hisakazu Iwama, Joji Tani, Takako Nomura, Mai Nakahara, Kyoko Ohura, Tomoko Tadokoro, Koji Fujita, Shima Mimura, Hirohito Yoneyama, Hideki Kobara, Asahiro Morishita, Keiichi Okano, Yasuyuki Suzuki, Kunihiko Tsutsi, Takashi Himoto, Tsutomu Masaki, Association between microRNA‑527 and glypican‑3 in hepatocellular carcinoma, 2021, 21, 1792-1074, 10.3892/ol.2021.12490
    4. Liuwei Feng, Dongmei Fu, Lei Gao, Hepeng Cheng, Chaoyang Zhu, Guangwei Zhang, Circular RNA_0001495 increases Robo1 expression by sponging microRNA-527 to promote the proliferation, migration and invasion of bladder cancer cells, 2021, 42, 0143-3334, 1046, 10.1093/carcin/bgab040
    5. Jun Yin, Hai-Yan Huang, Ying Long, Yan Ma, Maerkeya Kamalibaike, Reyanguli Dawuti, Li Li, circ_C20orf11 enhances DDP resistance by inhibiting miR-527/YWHAZ through the promotion of extracellular vesicle-mediated macrophage M2 polarization in ovarian cancer, 2021, 22, 1538-4047, 440, 10.1080/15384047.2021.1959792
    6. Xinguo Lu, Jinxin Li, Zhenghao Zhu, Yue Yuan, Guanyuan Chen, Keren He, Predicting miRNA-disease associations via combining probability matrix feature decomposition with neighbor learning, 2021, 1545-5963, 1, 10.1109/TCBB.2021.3097037
    7. Yingqian Zhang, Jiao Yuan, Mengfei Guo, Run Xiang, Xiang Wang, Tianpeng Xie, Xiang Zhuang, Qiang Li, Qi Lai, Yan Yang, miR-657 Targets SRCIN1 via the Slug Pathway to Promote NSCLC Tumor Growth and EMT Induction, 2022, 2022, 1875-8630, 1, 10.1155/2022/4842454
    8. Ping Yang, Yingnan Qiao, Huaidong Liao, Yizheng Huang, Mei Meng, Yu Chen, Quansheng Zhou, The Cancer/Testis Antigen CT45A1 Promotes Transcription of Oncogenic Sulfatase-2 Gene in Breast Cancer Cells and Is Sensible Targets for Cancer Therapy, 2023, 26, 1738-6756, 10.4048/jbc.2023.26.e5
    9. Mohd Mabood Khan, Mohammad Serajuddin, Mausumi Bharadwaj, Potential plasma microRNAs signature miR-190b-5p, miR-215-5p and miR-527 as non-invasive biomarkers for prostate cancer, 2023, 28, 1354-750X, 227, 10.1080/1354750X.2022.2163694
    10. Changhui Li, Jiaqi Zhang, Xiaohua Yang, Cheng Hu, Tianqing Chu, Runbo Zhong, Yinchen Shen, Fang Hu, Feng Pan, Jianlin Xu, Jun Lu, Xiaoxuan Zheng, Hai Zhang, Wei Nie, Baohui Han, Xueyan Zhang, hsa_circ_0003222 accelerates stemness and progression of non-small cell lung cancer by sponging miR-527, 2021, 12, 2041-4889, 10.1038/s41419-021-04095-8
    11. Mengzhen Han, 6-O-endosulfatases in tumor metastasis: heparan sulfate proteoglycans modification and potential therapeutic targets, 2024, 14, 21566976, 897, 10.62347/RXVE7097
    12. Hamid Aria, Mahdieh Azizi, Shima Nazem, Behnam Mansoori, Farzaneh Darbeheshti, Anoosha Niazmand, Abdolreza Daraei, Yaser Mansoori, Competing endogenous RNAs regulatory crosstalk networks: The messages from the RNA world to signaling pathways directing cancer stem cell development, 2024, 10, 24058440, e35208, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35208
    13. Christopher Zhang, Benson Z. Wu, Kelsie L. Thu, Targeting Kinesins for Therapeutic Exploitation of Chromosomal Instability in Lung Cancer, 2025, 17, 2072-6694, 685, 10.3390/cancers17040685
    14. Sai Bhavani Gottumukkala, Anbumathi Palanisamy, Non-small cell lung cancer map and analysis: exploring interconnected oncogenic signal integrators, 2025, 0938-8990, 10.1007/s00335-025-10110-6
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5217) PDF downloads(1206) Cited by(8)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog