ArticleScientific reports2021
Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bisexual releases are as effective as male-only releases to control Drosophila suzukii with the sterile insect technique.Pest management science · 2026Article
- Evidence for transient deleterious thermal acclimation in field recapture rates of an invasive tropical species, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).Insect science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insects tend to live within well-defined habitats, and at smaller scales can have distinct microhabitat preferences. These preferences are important, but often overlooked, in applications of the sterile insect technique. Different microhabitat preferences of sterile and wild insects may reflect differences in environmental tolerance and may lead to spatial separation in the field, both of which may reduce the control program efficiency. In this study, we compared the diurnal microhabitat distributions of mass-reared (fertile and sterile) and wild Queensland fruit flies, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Flies were individually tagged and released into field cages containing citrus trees. We recorded their locations in the canopies (height from ground, distance from canopy center), behavior (resting, grooming, walking, feeding), and the abiotic conditions on occupied leaves (temperature, humidity, light intensity) throughout the day. Flies from all groups moved lower in the canopy when temperature and light intensity were high, and humidity was low; lower canopy regions provided shelter from these conditions. Fertile and sterile mass-reared flies of both sexes were generally lower in the canopies than wild flies. Flies generally fed from the top sides of leaves that were lower in the canopy, suggesting food sources in these locations. Our observations suggest that mass-reared and wild B. tryoni occupy different locations in tree canopies, which could indicate different tolerances to environmental extremes and may result in spatial separation of sterile and wild flies when assessed at a landscape scale.
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.