ArticlePeerJ2022
The sterile insect technique is protected from evolution of mate discrimination.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The sterile insect technique (SIT) has been used to suppress and even extinguish pest insect populations. The method involves releasing artificially reared insects (usually males) that, when mating with wild individuals, sterilize the broods. If administered on a large enough scale, the sterility can collapse the population. Precedents from other forms of population suppression, especially chemicals, raise the possibility of resistance evolving against the SIT. Here, we consider resistance in the form of evolution of female discrimination to avoid mating with sterile males. Is resistance evolution expected? Methods: We offer mathematical models to consider the dynamics of this process. Most of our models assume a constant-release protocol, in which the same density of males is released every generation, regardless of wild male density. A few models instead assume proportional release, in which sterile releases are adjusted to be a constant proportion of wild males. Results: We generally find that the evolution of female discrimination, although favored by selection, will often be too slow to halt population collapse when a constant-release implementation of the SIT is applied appropriately and continually. The accelerating efficacy of sterile males in dominating matings as the population collapses works equally against discriminating females as against non-discriminating females, and rare genes for discrimination are too slow to ascend to prevent the loss of females that discriminate. Even when migration from source populations sustains the treated population, continued application of the SIT can prevent evolution of discrimination. However, periodic premature cessation of the SIT does allow discrimination to evolve. Likewise, use of a 'proportional-release' protocol is also prone to escape from extinction if discriminating genotypes exist in the population, even if those genotypes are initially rare. Overall, the SIT is robust against the evolution of mate discrimination provided care is taken to avoid some basic pitfalls. The models here provide insight for designing programs to avoid those pitfalls.
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.