Close-kin mark-recapture methods to estimate demographic parameters of mosquitoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Close-kin mark-recapture (CKMR) methods have recently been used to infer demographic parameters such as census population size and survival for fish of interest to fisheries and conservation. These methods have advantages over traditional mark-recapture methods as the mark is genetic, removing the need for physical marking and recapturing that may interfere with parameter estimation. For mosquitoes, the spatial distribution of close-kin pairs has been used to estimate mean dispersal distance, of relevance to vector-borne disease transmission and novel biocontrol strategies. Here, we extend CKMR methods to the life history of mosquitoes and comparable insects. We derive kinship probabilities for mother-offspring, father-offspring, full-sibling and half-sibling pairs, where an individual in each pair may be a larva, pupa or adult. A pseudo-likelihood approach is used to combine the marginal probabilities of all kinship pairs. To test the effectiveness of this approach at estimating mosquito demographic parameters, we develop an individual-based model of mosquito life history incorporating egg, larva, pupa and adult life stages. The simulation labels each individual with a unique identification number, enabling close-kin relationships to be inferred for sampled individuals. Using the dengue vector Aedes aegypti as a case study, we find the CKMR approach provides unbiased estimates of adult census population size, adult and larval mortality rates, and larval life stage duration for logistically feasible sampling schemes. Considering a simulated population of 3,000 adult mosquitoes, estimation of adult parameters is accurate when ca. 40 adult females are sampled biweekly over a three month period. Estimation of larval parameters is accurate when adult sampling is supplemented with ca. 120 larvae sampled biweekly over the same period. The methods are also effective at detecting intervention-induced increases in adult mortality and decreases in population size. As the cost of genome sequencing declines, CKMR holds great promise for characterizing the demography of mosquitoes and comparable insects of epidemiological and agricultural significance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".