Jump to content

Reproductive interference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MZhong11 (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 31 May 2020 (Edits throughout entire article (RE: grammar, clarity, meaning).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reproductive interference is the interaction between individuals of different species during mate acquisition that leads to a reduction of fitness in one or more of the individuals involved. The interactions occur when individuals make mistakes or are unable to recognise their own species, labelled as ‘incomplete species recognition'. Reproductive interference has been found within a variety of taxa, including insects, mammals, birds, amphibians, marine organisms, and plants.[1]

There are seven causes of reproductive interference, namely signal jamming, heterospecific rivalry, misdirected courtship, heterospecific mating attempts, erroneous female choice, heterospecific mating, and hybridisation. All types have fitness costs on the participating individuals, generally from a reduction in reproductive success, a waste of gametes, and the expenditure of energy and nutrients. These costs are variable and dependent on numerous factors, such as the cause of reproductive interference, the sex of the parent, and the species involved.[1]

Reproductive interference occurs between species that occupy the same habitat and can play a role in influencing the coexistence of these species. It differs from competition as reproductive interference does not occur due to a shared resource.[1] Reproductive interference can have ecological consequences, such as through the segregation of species both spatially and temporally.[2] It can also have evolutionary consequences, for example; it can impose a selective pressure on the effected species to evolve traits that better distinguish themselves from other species.[3]

Causes of reproductive interference

Reproductive interference can occur at different stages of mating, from locating a potential mate, to the fertilisation of an individual of a different species. There are seven causes of reproductive interference that each have their own consequences on the fitness of one or both of the involved individuals.[1]

Signal jamming

Signal jamming refers to the interference of one signal by another.[1] Jamming can occur by signals emitted from environmental sources (e.g. noise pollution), or from other species. In the context of reproductive interference, signal jamming only refers to the disruption of the transmission or retrieval of signals by another species.[1] The process of mate attraction and acquisition involves signals to aid in locating and recognising potential mates. Signals can also give the receiver an indication of the quality of a potential mate.[4] Signal jamming can occur in different types of communication. Auditory signal jamming, otherwise labelled as auditory masking, is when a noisy environment created by heterospecific signals causes difficulties in identifying conspecifics.[5] Likewise in chemical signals, pheromones that are meant to attract conspecifics and drive off others may overlap with heterospecific pheromones, leading to confusion.[6] Difficulties in recognising and locating conspecifics can result in a reduction of encounters with potential mates and a decrease in mating frequencies.[6]

Examples

Pair of mating American grapevine leafhoppers (Scaphoideus titanus)

Vibrational signalling in the American grapevine leafhopper (Scaphoideus titanus) - Like many insects, the American grapevine leafhopper has receptors that detect vibrational signals from conspecifics. The vibrations can be used to identify and locate potential females for mating. To successfully communicate, a duet is performed between a male and female American grapevine leafhopper. However, vibrational signals are prone to disruption by heterospecific signals, and other sources of background noise that are within their species-specific sensitivity range. The presence of other signals can mask the signals produced by females. Other signals that follow closely after the female’s vibrations can also confuse the male. Heterospecific signals that add to background noise can lead to a reduction of male and female encounters by reducing the success of identifying and locating female American grapevine leafhoppers.[7]

Gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor)

Auditory signalling in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) – Male gray treefrogs aggregate and produce advertisement calls to attract females during their mating season. An overlap of calls with male Cope's gray treefrogs (Dryophytes chrysoscelis) can affect the time it takes for a female gray treefrog to choose a mate. Females take longer to choose when there is a higher overlap (i.e. higher interference) of calls. At high levels of interference, females also make more mistakes by choosing the heterospecific call over a call from a conspecific male. Consequently, auditory masking by heterospecific signals can reduce the female’s success in recognising and locating males of the same species.[8]

Chemical signalling in ticks – Female ticks produce a pheromone that is a species-specific signal to attract conspecific males on a host. A signal that is not species-specific is additionally produced by female ticks that can attract males that are in a close proximity to her. Pheromones emitted from closely related species of ticks may mix and lead to interference. Three closely related species of reptile ticks; Aponomma hydrosauri, Amblyomma albolimbatum, and Amblyomma limbatum, can interfere with one another when attached to the same host. When females from two of the species of ticks are on the same host, males have difficulties in locating a female of the same species. The presence of a heterospecific female can also reduce the time a male spent with conspecific females, leading to a reduction of reproductive success. Furthermore, when Amblyomma albolimbatum males attach to Aponomma hydrosauri females to mate, despite being unsuccessful, they remain attached which physically inhibits following males from mating.[9]

Heterospecific rivalry

Heterospecific rivalry occurs between males, when a male of a different species is mistaken as a rival for mates (i.e. mistaken for a conspecific male).[1] In particular, heterospecific rivalry is hard to differentiate from other interspecific interactions, such as the competition over food and other resources.[1] Costs to the mistaken males can include the wastage of time and energy and a higher risk of injury and predation if they leave their mating territory to pursue the heterospecific male.[10] Males that chase off a heterospecific male may leave females exposed to following intruders, whether it be a conspecific or heterospecific male.[10]

Examples

The Eastern amberwing dragonfly (Perithemis tenera)

Eastern amberwing dragonfly (Perithemis tenera) - The males defend their mating territories against conspecific males. When approached by a species of horsefly and butterfly that share common characteristics, such as body size and colour, they may be chased off due to being mistaken for a conspecific. Other potential causes of this behaviour can be ruled out as the horsefly and butterfly do not compete with the Eastern amberwing dragonfly over resources. The horsefly and butterfly are also neither a predator nor prey of the Eastern amberwing dragonfly.[11]

Mating chequred skippers (Carterocephalus paleaemon)

Chequered skipper (Carterocephalus palaemon) – Male and female chequered skippers occupy different regions when they are not mating. Despite occupying different regions, male chequered skippers are territorial and will attempt to defend their females against other male rivals by perching in areas close to them. To defend the females, males will leave their favoured perch to intercept the flight of the individual that they label as a threat. Bees, hoverflies, and other species of butterfly are among the many insects that may visit these regions. It was found that 69% of the interceptions made by chequered skipper males were ‘false-alarms’. Interceptions are energetically costly to males as they may fly up to 30m away from their initial perch location. Additionally, after taking flight to intercept a potential rival, they subsequently perform more frequent flights.[12]

Misdirected courtship

Misdirected courtship occurs when males display courtship towards individuals of a different species of either sex.[1] The misdirection is caused by a mistake during species recognition, or by an attraction towards heterospecifics that possess desirable traits.[1] Such desirable traits are those traits that normally are an indicator of conspecific mate quality, such as body size.[13] Costs associated with misdirecting courtship for males include the wasted energy investment in the attempt to court heterospecifics, and a decrease in mating frequency within species.[14]

Examples

Red cheek (Uraeginthus angolensis)

Blue waxbill – In males of the blue breast (Uraeginthus angolensis), red cheek (Uraeginthus bengalus), and blue cap (Uraeginthus cyanocephalus), their preference is affected by the size of a heterospecific female, potentially due to body size which is an indicator of fecundity. Male preferences decrease for conspecific females when the heterospecific female has a larger body size. Similarly, females in all three species prefer males with ornamentation, which all excluding the male blue breasts have.[15]

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) – Atlantic salmon that were once native to Lake Ontario were reintroduced to the lake to study their spawning interactions with other species of fish, including the chinook salmon, coho salmon, brown trout. Chinook salmon interacted with Atlantic salmon the most, where male chinooks attempted to court female Atlantic salmon. Male chinooks also chased away, and in some interactions, behaved aggressively towards other Atlantic salmon that approached female Atlantic salmon. A male brown trout was also observed to court a female Atlantic salmon once. Misdirected courtship towards the Atlantic salmon can cause problems in waters that the Atlantic salmon currently occupy, and towards conservation efforts to reintroduce the Atlantic salmon to Lake Ontario. Implications of misdirected courtship on the Atlantic salmon may include: the delay or prevention of spawning, and the hybridisation of the Atlantic salmon with other species.[16]

Heterospecific mating attempts

Heterospecific mating attempts occur when males attempt to mate with females of a different species, regardless of whether courtship occurs.[1] During each mating attempt, sperm transfer may or may not occur.[1] Both sexes have costs when a heterospecific attempts to mate. Costs associated with heterospecific mating attempts include wasted energy, time, and potentially gametes if sperm transfer occurs.[17] There is also a risk of injury and increased risk of predation for both sexes.[17]

Examples

The Cepero's grasshopper (Tetrix ceperoi).

Cepero's grasshopper (Tetrix ceperoi) – The reproductive success of the Cepero’s grasshopper decreases when housed within the same enclosure as high numbers of the slender groundhopper. The reduction of reproductive success stems from an increase in mating attempts of the Cepero’s grasshopper to the slender groundhopper, potentially due to their larger body size. However, these mating attempts are generally unsuccessful as the mate recognition of female slender groundhoppers are reliable.[18]

Agile frog (Rana dalmatina)

Italian agile frog (Rana latastei) - The distribution of Italian agile frog and the agile frog (Rana dalmatina) overlap naturally in ponds and drainage ditches. In the areas of overlap, the abundance of agile frogs is higher than Italian agile frogs. When there is a higher abundance of agile frogs, the mating within Italian agile frogs is interfered with. Male agile frogs attempt to displace male Italian agile frogs during amplexus, which is a type of mating position where the male grasps onto the female. The Italian agile frog and agile frog have been seen in amplexus when co-existing. The mating attempts by the agile frog reduces the reproductive success of the Italian agile frog. The Italian agile frog also produces a lower number of viable eggs in the presence of the agile frog, potentially due to sperm competition between the male Italian agile frog and agile frog.[19]

Erroneous female choice

Erroneous female choice refers to mistakes made by females when differentiating males of the same species from males of a different species.[1] Female choice may occur at different stages of mating, including male courtship, copulation, or after copulation.[20] Female choice can depend on the availability of appropriate males.[21] When there are less available conspecific males, females may make more mistakes as they become less ‘choosy’.[21]

Examples

Pinyon pine beetle (Ips confusus)

Bark beetles - Amongst the three bark beetles: Ips confusus, Ips paraconfusus, PinyoIps hoppingi, the females are attracted to the pheromones of males of both conspecifics and heterospecifics. The product of the pairings between the three species of bark beetles does not survive past the larval stage.[22]

Striped ground cricket (Allonemobius fasciatus) and the Southern ground cricket (Allonemobius socius) - The striped ground and southern ground crickets use calling songs to locate potential mates. The songs are different in frequency and period. Naturally the two species of cricket co-exist in some areas and are isolated in others. Females of either species do not show preferences towards the calls from their conspecific males and appear to be unable to differentiate between the calling songs. Erroneous female choice has costs, including energy wastage and increases in predation risk when searching for a conspecific. However, these costs may be small since both species of cricket are abundant. The lack of ability to differentiate between the calling songs is proposed to be due to the weak selective pressure on the females.[23]

Heterospecific mating

Heterospecific mating is when two individuals from different species copulate. After the male transfers his sperm into the heterospecific female, different processes can occur that may change the outcome of the copulation. Heterospecific mating may result in the production of a hybrid in some pairings. Costs associated to heterospecific mating include the wastage of time, energy and gametes.[1]

Examples

Spider mites - two different species of spider mites within the genus Panonychus: Panonychus citri and Panonychus mori, mate with each other when co-existing. Heterospecific mating in this case, can produce fertilised eggs; however, all die by the larval developmental stage. Notably, after a female mates with a heterospecific male, they will only be able to produce male offspring when mating with a male of the same species. In addition to the costs of wasting energy, time, and gametes, the inability to produce female offspring after heterospecific mating is highly costly, and can affect the species’ distribution and cause local extinctions.[24]

Handsome Meadow Katydid (Orchelimum pulchellum)

Black-legged meadow katydid (Orchelimum nigripes) and the handsome meadow katydid (Orchelimum pulchellum) - The two species of katydid co-exist along the Potomac River and are closely related. Heterospecific mating between the black-legged meadow katydid and the handsome meadow katydid lead to large costs for both parents. Both parents suffer from unsuccessfully passing on their genes, as females either produces no eggs, or very few eggs after mating with a heterospecific male. In addition, eggs that survive and develop into male hybrids may be sterile.[25]

Hybridisation

Main article: Hybridisation

Hybridisation, in the context of reproductive interference, is defined as the mating between individuals of different species that can lead to a hybrid, an inviable egg, or an inviable offspring.[26] The frequency of hybridisation increases if it is hard to recognise potential mates, especially when heterospecifics share similarities, such as body size,[27] colouration,[28] and acoustic signals.[29] Costs associated with hybridisation are dependent on the level of parental investment and on the product of the pairing (hybrid).[1] If a hybrid is produced, they have the potential to become invasive, as some can be more successful than their parent species in surviving within new and changing habitats. Compared to each individual parent species, they hold a different combination of characteristics that can be more adaptable and 'fit' within particular environments.[30] If an inviable product is produced, both parents suffer from the cost of unsuccessfully passing on their genes.[1]

Examples

California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

California Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) x Barred Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium) - California tiger salamanders are native to California, and were geographically isolated from Barred tiger salamanders.[31] Barred tiger salamanders were then introduced by humans to California, and the mating between these two species led to the formation of a population of hybrids.[31] The hybrids have since established in their parent habitat and spread into human modified environments.[31] Within hybrids, the survivability of individuals with a mixed-ancestry is higher than individuals with a highly native or highly introduced background.[32] Stable populations can form as populations with a large native ancestry become mixed with more introduced genes, and vice versa.[32] Hybrids pose both ecological and conservation consequences as they threaten the population viability of the native California tiger salamanders, which is currently listed as an endangered species.[33] The hybrids may also affect the viability of other native organisms within the invaded regions, as they consume large quantities of aquatic invertebrates and tadpoles.[32]


Red deer (Cervus elaphus) x Sika deer (Cervus nippon) hybrid

Red deer (Cervus elaphus) x sika deer (Cervus nippon) - The sika deer were introduced to Britain, and spread through further deliberate introductions and escape. Red deer are native to Britain and mate with the sika deer in areas that they co-exist. Heterospecific mating between the pair can produce viable hybrids, which has led to the formation of a population of hybrids. The sika deer and the hybrid are competitors of the native red deer in regions of dense woodland. As the complete eradication of sika and the hybrids is impractical, management efforts are directed at minimising spread by not planting vegetation that would facilitate their spread into regions where the red deer still persist.[34]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Gröning J, Hochkirch A (September 2008). "Reproductive interference between animal species". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 83 (3): 257–82. doi:10.1086/590510. PMID 18792662.
  2. ^ Kuno, Eizi (1992). "Competitive exclusion through reproductive interference". Researches on Population Ecology. 34 (2): 275–284. doi:10.1007/BF02514797. ISSN 1437-5613.
  3. ^ Cothran, Rickey D. (2015). "The importance of reproductive interference in ecology and evolution: from organisms to communities". Population Ecology. 57 (2): 339–341. doi:10.1007/s10144-015-0488-z. ISSN 1438-390X.
  4. ^ Rendall, Drew; Owren, Michael J.; Ryan, Michael J. (2009). "What do animal signals mean?". Animal Behaviour. 78 (2): 233–240. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.007. ISSN 0003-3472.
  5. ^ Gerhardt, Carl H.; Enret, Günter (2009). "Auditory masking and effects of noise on responses of the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) to synthetic mating calls" (PDF). Journal of Comparative Physiology. 141: 13–18.
  6. ^ a b Saveer, Ahmed M.; Becher, Paul G.; Birgersson, Göran; Hansson, Bill S.; Witzgall, Peter; Bengtsson, Marie (2014). "Mate recognition and reproductive isolation in the sibling species Spodoptera littoralis and Spodoptera litura". Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2. doi:10.3389/fevo.2014.00018. ISSN 2296-701X.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  7. ^ Mazzoni, Valerio; Lucchi, Andrea; Čokl, Andrej; Prešern, Janez; Virant‐Doberlet, Meta (2009). "Disruption of the reproductive behaviour of Scaphoideus titanus by playback of vibrational signals". Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 133 (2): 174–185. doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00911.x. ISSN 1570-7458.
  8. ^ Marshall, Vincent T.; Schwartz, Joshua J.; Gerhardt, H. Carl (2006-08-01). "Effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs". Animal Behaviour. 72 (2): 449–459. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.02.001. ISSN 0003-3472.
  9. ^ Andrews RH, Petney TN, Bull CM (February 1982). "Reproductive interference between three parapatric species of reptile tick". Oecologia. 52 (2): 281–286. Bibcode:1982Oecol..52..281A. doi:10.1007/BF00363851. PMID 28310522.
  10. ^ a b Singer, Fred (1990-01-01). "Reproductive Costs Arising From Incomplete Habitat Segregation Among Three Species of Leucorrhinia Dragonflies". Behaviour. 115 (3–4): 188–201. doi:10.1163/156853990X00572. ISSN 0005-7959.
  11. ^ Schultz, Jaime K.; Switzer, Paul V. (2001-09-01). "Pursuit of Heterospecific Targets by Territorial Amberwing Dragonflies (Perithemis tenera Say): A Case of Mistaken Identity". Journal of Insect Behavior. 14 (5): 607–620. doi:10.1023/A:1012223217250. ISSN 1572-8889.
  12. ^ Ravenscroft, Neil O. M. (1994-05-01). "Environmental influences on mate location in male chequered skipper butterflies, Carterocephalus palaemon (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae)". Animal Behaviour. 47 (5): 1179–1187. doi:10.1006/anbe.1994.1156. ISSN 0003-3472.
  13. ^ Costa-Schmidt, L. E.; Machado, G. (2012). "Reproductive interference between two sibling species of gift-giving spiders". Animal Behaviour. 84 (5): 1201–1211. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.026. ISSN 0003-3472.
  14. ^ Verrell, Paul A. (1994). "Is Decreased Frequency of Mating among Conspecifics a Cost of Sympatry in Salamanders?". Evolution. 48 (3): 921–925. doi:10.2307/2410498. ISSN 0014-3820. JSTOR 2410498.
  15. ^ Brooks; Luddem; Collins; Winter (2004). "Some Males are Choosier Than Others: Species Recognition in Blue Waxbills". Behaviour. 141 (8): 1021–1039. doi:10.1163/1568539042360170. ISSN 0005-7959.
  16. ^ Scott, R. J.; Judge, K. A.; Ramster, K.; Noakes, D. L. G.; Beamish, F. W. H. (2005). "Interactions between naturalised exotic salmonids and reintroduced Atlantic salmon in a Lake Ontario tributary". Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 14 (4): 402–405. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0633.2005.00115.x. ISSN 1600-0633.
  17. ^ a b Singer, Fred (1990). "Reproductive costs arising from incomplete habitat segregation among three species of Leucorrhinia dragonflies". Behaviour. 115 (3–4): 188–202. doi:10.1163/156853990X00572.
  18. ^ Hochkirch A, Gröning J, Bücker A (July 2007). "Sympatry with the devil: reproductive interference could hamper species coexistence". The Journal of Animal Ecology. 76 (4): 633–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01241.x. PMID 17584368.
  19. ^ Hettyey, Attila; Pearman, Peter B. (2003-03-01). "Social environment and reproductive interference affect reproductive success in the frog Rana latastei". Behavioral Ecology. 14 (2): 294–300. doi:10.1093/beheco/14.2.294. ISSN 1045-2249.
  20. ^ Wong BB, Candolin U (November 2005). "How is female mate choice affected by male competition?". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 80 (4): 559–71. doi:10.1017/S1464793105006809. hdl:1912/256. PMID 16221329.
  21. ^ a b Wirtz P (July 1999). "Mother species-father species: unidirectional hybridization in animals with female choice". Animal Behaviour. 58 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1144. PMID 10413535.
  22. ^ Lewis, Edwin E.; Cane, James H. (1992-07-01). "Inefficacy of Courtship Stridulation as a Premating Ethological Barrier for Ips Bark Beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)". Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 85 (4): 517–524. doi:10.1093/aesa/85.4.517. ISSN 0013-8746.
  23. ^ Doherty, JOHN A.; Howard, DANIEL J. (1996-05-01). "Lack of preference for conspecific calling songs in female crickets". Animal Behaviour. 51 (5): 981–990. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0101. ISSN 0003-3472.
  24. ^ Takafuji, Akio; Kuno, Eiji; Fujimoto, Hiroaki (1997-06-01). "Reproductive interference and its consequences for the competitive interactions between two closely related Panonychus spider mites". Experimental & Applied Acarology. 21 (6): 379–391. doi:10.1023/A:1018423711166. ISSN 1572-9702.
  25. ^ Shapiro, L. H. (2000-05-01). "Reproductive Costs to Heterospecific Mating between Two Hybridizing Katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)". Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 93 (3): 440–446. doi:10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[0440:RCTHMB]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0013-8746.
  26. ^ Stebbins, G. Ledyard (1958), Demerec, M. (ed.), The Inviability, Weakness, and Sterility of Interspecific Hybrids, Advances in Genetics, vol. 9, Academic Press, pp. 147–215, doi:10.1016/S0065-2660(08)60162-5, ISBN 9780120176090, PMID 13520442, retrieved 2020-04-24 {{citation}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
  27. ^ Nagel L, Schluter D (February 1998). "Body Size, Natural Selection, and Speciation in Sticklebacks". Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution. 52 (1): 209–218. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb05154.x. PMID 28568156.
  28. ^ Seehausen, Ole; van Alphen, Jacques J. M. (1998). "The effect of male coloration on female mate choice in closely related Lake Victoria cichlids (Haplochromis nyererei complex)". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 42 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1007/s002650050405. ISSN 1432-0762.
  29. ^ Claridge, M. F.; Hollander, J. Den; Morgan, J. C. (1984). "Specificity of acoustic signals and mate choice in the brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens". Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 35 (3): 221–226. doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03385.x. ISSN 1570-7458.
  30. ^ Hovick SM, Whitney KD (November 2014). "Hybridisation is associated with increased fecundity and size in invasive taxa: meta-analytic support for the hybridisation-invasion hypothesis". Ecology Letters. 17 (11): 1464–77. doi:10.1111/ele.12355. PMC 4231983. PMID 25234578.
  31. ^ a b c Fitzpatrick BM, Shaffer HB (March 2007). "Introduction history and habitat variation explain the landscape genetics of hybrid tiger salamanders". Ecological Applications. 17 (2): 598–608. doi:10.1890/06-0369. PMID 17489263.
  32. ^ a b c Fitzpatrick BM, Shaffer HB (October 2007). "Hybrid vigor between native and introduced salamanders raises new challenges for conservation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (40): 15793–8. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10415793F. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704791104. PMC 2000440. PMID 17884982.
  33. ^ "Ambystoma californiense". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2004. Retrieved 25 April 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  34. ^ Balharry, E.; Staines, B. W.; Marquiss, M.; Kruuk, H. (1994). "Hybridisation in British mammals". www.jncc.gov.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reproductive_interference&oldid=959939559"