ArticleParasites & vectors2023
Using geometric wing morphometrics to distinguish Aedes japonicus japonicus and Aedes koreicus.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comprehensive Mosquito Wing Image Repository for Advancing Research on Geometric Morphometric- and AI-Based Identification.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Reliability of wing morphometrics for species identification of human-biting black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in Thailand.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Integrating wing morphometrics and mitochondrial DNA analysis to assess the filaria vector Mansonia uniformis (Diptera: Culicidae) populations in Thailand.Parasitology research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAedes japonicus japonicus (Theobald, 1901) and Aedes koreicus (Edwards, 1917) have rapidly spread in Europe over the last decades. Both species are very closely related and occur in sympatry. Females and males are difficult to distinguish. However, the accurate species discrimination is important as both species may differ in their vectorial capacity and spreading behaviour. In this study, we assessed the potential of geometric wing morphometrics as alternative to distinguish the two species.
methodsA total of 147 Ae. j. japonicus specimens (77 females and 70 males) and 124 Ae. koreicus specimens (67 females and 57 males) were collected in southwest Germany. The left wing of each specimen was removed, mounted and photographed. The coordinates of 18 landmarks on the vein crosses were digitalised by a single observer. The resulting two-dimensional dataset was used to analyse the differences in the wing size (i.e. centroid size) and wing shape between Ae. j. japonicus and Ae. koreicus using geometric morphometrics. To analyse the reproducibility of the analysis, the landmark collection was repeated for 20 specimens per sex and species by two additional observers.
resultsThe wing size in female Ae. koreicus was significantly greater than in Ae. j. japonicus but did not differ significantly for males. However, the strong overlap in wing size also for the females would not allow to discriminate the two species. In contrast, the wing shape clustering was species specific and a leave-one-out validation resulted in a reclassification accuracy of 96.5% for the females and 91.3% for the males. The data collected by different observers resulted in a similar accuracy, indicating a low observer bias for the landmark collection.
conclusionsGeometric wing morphometrics provide a reliable and robust tool to distinguish female and male specimens of Ae. j. japonicus and Ae. koreicus.
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.