ArticleParasites & vectors2018
Small females prefer small males: size assortative mating in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The microbiota impacts life history traits and mating success in malebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Review
- Evidence for Significant Skew and Low Heritability of Competitive Male Mating Success in the Yellow Fever MosquitoEvolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Coevolutionary Interactions between Sexual and Habitat Isolation during Reinforcement.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024Review
- Mosquito Sexual Selection and Reproductive Control Programs.Trends in parasitology · 2021Review
- Identifying the fitness costs of a pyrethroid-resistant genotype in the major arboviral vector Aedes aegypti.Parasites & vectors · 2020Article
- Evolutionary Ecology ofAnnual review of genetics · 2019Review
- Too "sexy" for the field? Paired measures of laboratory and semi-field performance highlight variability in the apparent mating fitness of Aedes aegypti transgenic strains.Parasites & vectors · 2019Article
- A LAMP assay for the rapid and robust assessment of Wolbachia infection in Aedes aegypti under field and laboratory conditions.PloS one · 2019Article
- Competition among Aedes aegypti larvae.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith Aedes aegypti mosquitoes now being released in field programmes aimed at disease suppression, there is interest in identifying factors influencing the mating and invasion success of released mosquitoes. One factor that can increase release success is size: released males may benefit competitively from being larger than their field counterparts. However, there could be a risk in releasing only large males if small field females avoid these males and instead prefer small males. Here we investigate this risk by evaluating mating success for mosquitoes differing in size.
resultsWe measured mating success indirectly by coupling size with Wolbachia-infected or uninfected mosquitoes and scoring cytoplasmic incompatibility. Large females showed no evidence of a mating preference, whereas small males were relatively more successful than large males when mating with small females, exhibiting an advantage of around 20-25%.
conclusionsBecause field females typically encompass a wide range of sizes while laboratory reared (and released) males typically fall into a narrow size range of large mosquitoes, these patterns can influence the success of release programmes which rely on cytoplasmic incompatibility to suppress populations and initiate replacement invasions. Releases could include some small males generated under low food or crowded conditions to counter this issue, although this would need to be weighed against issues associated with costs of producing males of various size classes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.