ArticleInsects2022
Comparison of Ground Release and Drone-Mediated Aerial Release of
Article in Insects, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- New frontiers for unmanned aerial vehicles in planetary health research.BMC global and public health · 2026Review
- A 3D-printed adult release system compatible with a drone for aerial deployment of Aedes aegypti and Glossina palpalis gambiensis.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Mark-Release-Recapture of Packed and Shipped Aedes aegypti with Wolbachia: Implications for Conducting Remote Incompatible Insect Technique Programs.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Exploring 97 Years of Aedes aegypti as the Vector for Dengue, Yellow Fever, Zika, and Chikungunya (Diptera: Culicidae): Scientometric Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Gamma-Irradiated Female Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes Exhibit Greater Susceptibility to Mayaro Virus.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- Eliminating malaria vectors with precision-guided sterile males.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Eliminating Malaria Vectors with Precision Guided Sterile Males.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Enhancing the scalability of Wolbachia-based vector-borne disease management: time and temperature limits for storage and transport of Wolbachia-infected Aedes aegypti eggs for field releases.Parasites & vectors · 2023Article
- Release of sterile Aedes aegypti mosquitoes: chilling effect on mass-reared males survival and escape ability and on irradiated males sexual competitiveness.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and control of vectors of malaria and other vector-borne diseases.Malaria journal · 2023Review
- Joint FAO/IAEA Coordinated Research Project on "Insects · 2023Article
- Requirements for market entry of gene drive-modified mosquitoes for control of vector-borne diseases: analogies to other biologic and biotechnology products.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Current Status of Mosquito Handling, Transporting and Releasing in Frame of the Sterile Insect Technique.Insects · 2022Review
- New self-sexingFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sterile males of Aedes aegypti were released once a week for 8 weeks to evaluate the dispersal efficiency of ground and aerial drone release methods in a rural village of 26 Ha in southern Mexico. Indoor and outdoor BG-Sentinel traps were placed in 13−16 houses distributed throughout the village. The BG traps were activated 48 h after the release of the sterile males and functioned for a 24 h period following each release. Over the 8-week period of simultaneous ground and aerial releases, an average of 85,117 ± 6457 sterile males/week were released at ground level and 86,724 ± 6474 sterile males/week were released using an aerial drone. The ground release method resulted in higher numbers of captured males (mean = 5.1 ± 1.4, range 1.1−15.7 sterile males/trap) compared with the aerial release method (mean = 2.6 ± 0.8, range 0.5−7.3 sterile males/trap) (p < 0.05). Similarly, the prevalence of traps that captured at least one sterile male was significantly higher for ground release compared to the aerial release method (p < 0.01). The lower numbers of sterile males captured in the aerial release method could be due to mortality or physical injury caused by the chilling process for immobilization, or the compaction of these insects during transport and release. However, aerial releases by a two-person team distributed insects over the entire village in just 20 min, compared to ~90 min of work for a five-person team during the ground release method. Ground release also resulted in higher aggregations of males and some villagers reported feeling discomfort from the presence of large numbers of mosquitoes in and around their houses. We conclude that modifications to the handling and transport of sterile males and the design of containers used to store males are required to avoid injury and to improve the efficiency of aerial releases for area-wide SIT-based population suppression programs targeted at mosquito vectors of human disease.
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.