Sterile Insect Technique
DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4051-2_20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Management of Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management Programmes that Integrate the Sterile Insect Technique

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0
1

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
34
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Dyck et al (2005), in their review of area-wide management programs involving the sterile insect technique, recommend that penalties for poor performance need to be negotiated before the program commences. These requirements should form part of an official agreement between stakeholders, rather than an agreement between friends.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Dyck et al (2005), in their review of area-wide management programs involving the sterile insect technique, recommend that penalties for poor performance need to be negotiated before the program commences. These requirements should form part of an official agreement between stakeholders, rather than an agreement between friends.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Maintaining public participation is a key challenge (Mumford and Tan 2000). However, it is mostly the technical and economic aspects of QFly that receives most attention in the literature (Dyck et al 2005). This paper attempts to broaden the problemsolving approach by shedding more light on the socio-institutional factors that influence the success of these undertakings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2. For an extensive discussion on SIT public and grower program contributions and cost recovery, see Mumford (2005) and Dyck et al (2005).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While research was funded by a federal grant (Turpin et al 2012(Turpin et al -2017, it is unclear if direct or indirect producer contributions would be expected for any future releases. Previous area-wide campaigns such as the SIT screwworm project in the US have been funded publically, with some support from producer groups (Dyck et al 2005). 2 Economists have argued that because the benefits of SIT programs are broad and society-wide, central funding through general taxation may be more efficient (Mumford 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to reach a sustainable field population reduction, one of the key challenges when applying SIT is the production of sufficient mosquitoes to achieve the target production level of males to be released and for colony replacement [4, 6]. For this reason, it is necessary to continually produce large numbers of eggs (millions of eggs/day) to fill several tray-rack larval rearing units [7, 8] in order to reach a daily operational level able to sustain continuous large scale operation activities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%