Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Australia Science

Australian Experiment Wipes Out Over 80% of Disease-Carrying Mosquitoes (cnn.com) 177

Posted by EditorDavid from the buzz-off dept.
schwit1 quotes CNN: In an experiment with global implications, Australian scientists have successfully wiped out more than 80% of disease-carrying mosquitoes in trial locations across north Queensland.

The experiment, conducted by scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and James Cook University (JCU), targeted Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, which spread deadly diseases such as dengue fever and Zika. In JCU laboratories, researchers bred almost 20 million mosquitoes, infecting males with bacteria that made them sterile. Then, last summer, they released over three million of them in three towns on the Cassowary Coast.

The sterile male mosquitoes didn't bite or spread disease, but when they mated with wild females, the resulting eggs didn't hatch, and the population crashed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Experiment Wipes Out Over 80% of Disease-Carrying Mosquitoes More

Australian Experiment Wipes Out Over 80% of Disease-Carrying Mosquitoes

Comments Filter:

  • Works for people too (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The sterile male mosquitoes didn't bite or spread disease, but when they mated with wild females, the resulting eggs didn't hatch, and the population crashed.

    A secret organization I cannot name is trying the same thing right now, in western countries we're releasing a bunch of liberal males into the populace - They just yell a lot and while not sterile, are so unpleasant they make breeding pretty much impossible so the result is the same - population crashing.

    It's working far better than we had hoped!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by John Da' Baddest ( 1686670 )

      I thought it was the other way around. Fox News replaces Fux News pornography, then suddenly all the new-Republican non-trophy wives can look up to Sarah Sanders for inspiration how to be servile.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        Like daughter, like father. What price does an Evangelical get for his/her soul?

    • Youâ(TM)re thinking of the âoeincelsâ, who are mostly right-wingers. The correct term, though, is âoevolcelâ since theyâ(TM)re to lazy to make themselves better people do they can get a date.

      • Key words in your comment were scrambled by the mobile hardware you used to enter it on the site. If you cannot figure out the arcane submenu settings to change to fix the problem, you'd better upgrade to hardware from a different vendor.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        People if you must use Word to type your comments then cut and paste. Please use the preview feature and actually fix the text. /. isn't smart enough to figure out what to do with "smart" quotes.

    • Easy on the cultural bolshevism. We know what happened last time.

  • Nature finds a way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Saturday July 14, 2018 @01:43PM (#56947950)

    So this year the population is down 80%, the next year it'll be down another 60%... but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune, and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation. To challenge nature on it's own terms is generally futile in the long run.

    • Re: Nature finds a way (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There are many species of mosquito. The non targeted non disease carrying species would fill the emptied niche/feed the birds. Crichton was an author, not a biologist.

      • And wasn't Goldblum one of the most annoying characters ever in that movie?

      • Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in their training.

        • Why do you choose their when talking about a specific person?

          Just interested.

          I prefer "they" as a gender neutral pronoun also.

          • I refer to medical doctors in general.

            • Thanks.. I was reading it as

              Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in Crichton's training.

              not

              Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in medical doctor's training.

        • Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in their training.

          What, all of it? Biology's a pretty broad subject.

          I'd be almost as surprised if ecology & population dynamics were on the course as I would if I saw cryptobotany.

          • But as a medical doctor, he's well versed in things like scientific journals, research, and statistics while also having the prerequisite technical biology knowledge required to assess scientific literature. And it's clear he consulted scientific literature.

            To say he is an author and not a biologist is disingenuous because compared to most authors, he's closer to biologist than he is author when it comes to biology.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bestweasel ( 773758 )

        Crichton was an author, not a biologist.

        Wikipedia:

        [H]e obtained his bachelor's degree in biological anthropology summa cum laude in 1964... He received a Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellowship from 1964 to 1965 and was a visiting lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965.

        He graduated from Harvard, obtaining an MD in 1969, and undertook a post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by guygo ( 894298 )
      excellent response. and what about the frogs? who will speak for the frogs?

    • Re:Nature finds a way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wookie Monster ( 605020 ) on Saturday July 14, 2018 @01:59PM (#56948030)
      How did you arrive at the 80% decrease in bird population? Do you have some data that shows that the birds living in this area depend exclusively on a diet of mosquitos? If this is the case, then it would seem that the population of the other mosquitos will go down as well. Keep in mind that an 80% reduction of disease caring mosquitos doesn't imply an 80% decrease in all mosquitos.

      • Let's be fair here. Yes, you are correct to call out the "80% decline in bird population" since mosquitos are not the only source of food for birds. On the other hand, mosquitos ARE food and this is about reducing the number of mosquitos, which means reducing the amount of food.

        I have actually seen this in action: Insects flying about being annoying one year. Next year, very few insects flying about being annoying because of aggressive chemical use. Next year after that, you can't see because the insects ar

    • We'll make it work out in the end. The gorillas will just freeze to death when winter comes.

    • Re:Nature finds a way (Score:5, Informative)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Saturday July 14, 2018 @02:02PM (#56948040)

      Please note that this was only one species of mosquito, not them all. And I don't believe they make up much of birds' diet. That isn't to say that you are wrong about the idea that "nature finds a way", because it usually does. Although not always (which is why we end up with extinct species).

      Personally, I selfishly would rather see mosquitoes (and fleas, ticks, bedbugs, stable/horse/deer/sand flies, lice, and all other such) wiped off the Earth completely, or at least converted into some non-parasitic versions (ones that don't bite and suck blood). Or at a minimum, some magic thing that would keep them at bay without dousing oneself repeatedly in barely effective and smelly chemicals. Hey, one can dream!

    • Re:Nature finds a way (Score:5, Informative)

      by cyn1c77 ( 928549 ) on Saturday July 14, 2018 @02:21PM (#56948114)

      So this year the population is down 80%, the next year it'll be down another 60%... but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune, and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation. To challenge nature on it's own terms is generally futile in the long run.

      There are lots of other things for birds to eat. Also, bats eat many more mosquitoes than birds and there are many other insects for bats to eat.

      Also, the mosquitoes they are eradicating were not a native species in Australia. So presumably the birds were fine eating native insects before this particular breed was introduced.

    • No, the bird population wouldn't crash (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sorry this is memory without citation, but I recall reading some news a few years ago that mosquitoes are not the sole or primary food source for anything. All mosquito-eaters are generalized insectivores which have many alternate food sources.

      The discussion was specifically about the ecological consequences of a hypothetical extinction of mosquitoes, and the conclusion that nothing particularly bad would happen if the family Culicidae were exterminated.

      That said, I agree that 80% will only get worse, as f

      • Sorry this is memory without citation, but I recall reading some news

        You're probably recalling some Monsanto or Dow Chemical brochure you read one day.

      • That said, I agree that 80% will only get worse, as females learn to avoid the sterile males, or mate multiple times, or whatever it takes to be among the 20%.

        Why should the 80% get worse? I suspect that figure is determined only by the ratio of sterilized to unsterilized males in the environment. BTW, from my reading, most females mate only once but can produce up to three batches of eggs from that mating (needing three blood meals), but males can mate multiple times with different females.

        • If I recall correctly, they made the altered males more attractive by changing their genes so they produced stronger pheromones.

          However, there are plenty of women who don't like attractive men (hell, I'm married to one...). Likewise, some small percentage of female mosquitos may actually prefer the non-altered males. They will continue to have offspring and pass this property on to them.

          In these new generations, there will be some (by pure chance) that are even less likely to mate with the altered males. An

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Suki I ( 1546431 )

      So we are still not going to get the Silent Spring that we were promised 56 years ago?

      I feel so cheated.

    • Re:Nature finds a way (Score:5, Informative)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Saturday July 14, 2018 @02:25PM (#56948132)
      In most environments there are several to dozens of different species of mosquitoes (many of which don't bite humans) so removing one will mean that it is supplanted by other types. Also, there's very little concern over mosquitos having a knock-on effect up the food chain. When this was previously studied, researchers were far more concerned with bats (as most birds don't get much of their food from mosquitoes) and found that even among bats, mosquitoes only constituted a tiny part of their diet.

      This type of solution is preferable to most other forms of mosquito control (okay it's not as cool as the laser [youtube.com]) in that unlikely spraying insecticides, this approach only targets the specific type of mosquito that we want to eliminate whereas spraying kills all manner of different types of insects, including many that are of no harm to us. Using chemicals like DDT allowed us to eliminate malaria, but we realized that there were some high costs to that.

    • Re:Nature finds a way (Score:5, Informative)

      by SlaveToTheGrind ( 546262 ) on Saturday July 14, 2018 @02:27PM (#56948136)

      and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation

      Given that it's generally recognized that mosquitoes only make up a small [insectcop.net] single-digit percentage [mosquitoreviews.com] of the diets of certain birds (mainly purple martins) and bats, 80% might be a wee bit high.

    • Re:Nature finds a way (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14, 2018 @02:41PM (#56948214)

      1. Immune to what? Females would have to know that the male is sterile and only select non-sterile males, that is pretty hard task to do with just random mutation during a couple of generations. And even if they do figure out a way, all would just reset back to where it started. And there is no reason why scientists couldn't come up with a counter measure to that. But in other similar experiments they have not seen any immunity.
      2. You are making up numbers. Birds will do fine without that food source. Actual scientists that actually study birds have confirmed that, because this arguments comes up every time.
      3. To challenge nature is futile? You are talking to a species that has already wiped out hundreds of other species.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        You don't really understand evolution, do you?

        • Very few people have a good understanding of evolution. It has been adopted by many as a shorthand for them to apply a 'survival of the fittest' bromide. Evolution is very complex, involving factors like populations of a species becoming isolated from one another for long periods of time to adapt differently. So physical geography is as important in understanding it as biology. Evolution is complex, which is why it's actually rather easy for religious zealots to poke hooles it it. Evolution is unsettled sci

      • 1. Immune to what? Females would have to know that the male is sterile and only select non-sterile males, that is pretty hard task to do with just random mutation during a couple of generations.

        If there is any distinguishable difference between sterile and non-sterile male species, then the females (even if there are few of them) that are able to pick up on that will be dominant within a few generations, as all the others die off.

      • Females would have to know that the male is sterile and only select non-sterile males

        This isn't America. Healthcare is free in Australia. Just tell the males to get a sterility test and be done with it. It isn't cost prohibitive.

    • Re:Nature finds a way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ChromeAeonuim ( 1026946 ) on Saturday July 14, 2018 @02:50PM (#56948256)
      Not every mosquito is native to every area, and not every insect is a major and irreplaceable part of the food system.

      Humans have messed up every ecosystem on the planet, eliminated more species than we even keep track of, but try to eradicate one pest, even one which is an introduced vector of disease even to the native animals in some places, and suddenly you've gone too far? Baloney. If ecosystems were so fragile they could't handle the loss of one more exceptionally problematic pest, they would have collapsed a long time ago.

      And that 'nature will find a way' crap? Tell that to the Tasmanian tiger, the dodo, the moa, the quagga, steller's sea cow, or plenty of other less famous organisms. Tell that to the Hawaiian honeycreepers, which are currently being wiped out by avian malaria, spread by human introduced mosquitoes. Maybe tell that to the baiji or the totoaba, they could use the encouragement.

    • How can they become immune? There's no poison or any lethal - or even damaging - agent involved for them to become immune to.

      It's just like sticking little invisible insect rubbers on their little insect willies.

    • Actually, the nice thing about this approach is that it still works fine even if 100% of the wild population is immune. So long as they can keep infecting the captive population, the males will continue being sterile, which is all they need for this to work.

      Things only fall apart if the females begin selecting wild males to the exclusion of captive ones, or if scientists are unable to prevent immunity from spreading in the captive population (which would be a massive blunder on their part).

    • Nonsense, there are no birds that would die out without one species of mosquito. And if they release similar amount of sterile males next year, the population will not be down further 60%, it will be all but wiped out. After that they can number down how many sterile males they need to release every year. However, it will take only few years for the population to bounce back if they ever stop the program and it only works in close vicinity to where they release the males. So for biotech companies this could

    • So this year the population is down 80%, the next year it'll be down another 60%... but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune, and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation. To challenge nature on it's own terms is generally futile in the long run.

      That explains why we are now over run with dinosaurs...

    • but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune

      To what? Being unable to breed?

    • This solution to limit the mosquito population is not a poison. You don't "get immune" or "build up tolerance" when mating with a sterile partner. Mate with a sterile partner and you will not produce a child.

      Now, if the females would somehow be able to discern between sterile and potent mates then the experiment would begin to fail.

  • Australian Scientists Baffled As Small Bird Populations Crash; Climate Change Blamed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Or the non disease carrying species would expand into the available ecosystem. And the birds would eat those.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wish I had mod points. This is so blatantly predictable it hurts. Whilst I thought this was clever when I first heard of it a few years ago (this isn't a new idea and has actually been deployed before in tests elsewhere), it scares me due to the food-web implications. These species are all connected and we can't just go wiping one out without expecting severe collateral damage.

  • I'm offended by the mention of "wild females" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14, 2018 @02:39PM (#56948206)

    The term "wild females" is sexist and paints an unfavourable image of Australian women. I demand this study be thrown out, all paper copies destroyed, all backups erased and all the scientists who worked on it should lose their jobs. This is unacceptable behaviour in the #MeToo age.

  • Don't want to be harsh but vast tracts of land, including valuable rainforest, will be deserts and tarmac without mosquitoes. Stopping malaria will trigger some severe unintended consequences.

  • but I'm kinda bummed they used a biological method instead of the laser cannon that was discussed here a few years ago [slashdot.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      Wait!!

      We could have had active laser armed drones that zap mosquitoes roaming the streets. An we went with this?

  • This has been practiced by vector control authorities for decades in the U.S.

    When it's out of the news for so long, a repeat of the past becomes novel for a new generation.

  • What eats the mosquitoes? Because whatever it is, you just wiped out a major food source for them.

    • What eats the mosquitoes? Because whatever it is, you just wiped out a major food source for them.

      Good thing you're here. This is the first time anyone ever thought about such things...

    • one nice thing about bugs, if you're a thing that eats bugs, is that the world have an incredible number of types of bugs. The are only estimates on the number of species of bugs, maybe 2 million, maybe over 30 million. We've only cataloged 925,000 of them but there are so many more we'll be at it identifying the others for more than a century.

      so don't worry, bug eating critters have plenty more stations in the buffet line to chow on, they'll be fine.

    • What eats the mosquitoes? Because whatever it is, you just wiped out a major food source for them.

      They are non-native mosquitoes. This would be the equivalent of wiping out McDonalds from China. Life will go on.

  • Whilst it might be a promising contribution to global health (Hey, I'm an Australian), it's the other 20% we need to worry about. One step forwards, two steps back.

    • Whilst it might be a promising contribution to global health (Hey, I'm an Australian), it's the other 20% we need to worry about. One step forwards, two steps back.

      What is the two steps back? Or is this one of those things where you have no idea but want to there to be a negative angle anyway?

  • Hey how come we are not hearing any protests from animal rights people from Florida? This happens to be their state bird,you know.Just sayin

  • Method used since the 1950s (Score:5, Informative)

    by dtmos ( 447842 ) * on Sunday July 15, 2018 @01:11PM (#56952282)

    The sterile insect technique [wikipedia.org] has been used since the 1950s [wikipedia.org]. In Florida, in my living memory, it eliminated the dreadful screwworm (the males were sterilized by X-radiation), and even stopped a re-infestation in the Florida Keys in 2016.

    There is nothing new about this technique, except perhaps the method by which the males were made sterile. If you're concerned about ecological implications, the technique has a 60-year history covering many insects around the world for you to study.

    Before you dismiss the technique out of hand, however, I suggest that you spend time with patients (quite literally) suffering from Dengue, with mothers having given birth to babies with Microcephaly due to Zika, or those owning dogs, cats, or farm animals agonizing from screwworm infections, and get their viewpoint.

  • the technique had been used multiple times before, starting decades ago.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • do you want killer mosquitos? because this is how you get killer mosquitos...
  • What [rabbitfree...lia.com.au] could [smithsonianmag.com] go wrong [newscientist.com]?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Close