Parasite-host interactions between Protocalliphora Spp. (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many host-parasite relationships exist, and while some have been studied extensively, for others, our understanding of the influences the parasite and host impose on each other is limited. Ectoparasites live in close proximity to their host, often living on the host or within the nest of their host, and so are influenced not only by the individual host they exploit, but by the habitat choices of their host as well. Bird blow flies in the genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae) are ectoparasites of the altricial young of many species of birds; the nests of tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor in particular are frequently infested by a number of species of Protocalliphora. Through the use of baited traps, experimental manipulation of the nests and nest sites of hosts, and observing the behaviours of adult tree swallows, I studied: (1) host location and host selection strategies of blow flies by testing the importance of nest feathers to blow flies; (2) the influence of the density and distribution of hosts and a reduction in available hosts on the size and density of parasites; (3) individual host selection; (4) the effect of sanitation behaviour by hosts on the size and density of blow flies. Traps baited with potential cues used by blow flies in host location were unsuccessful in attracting blow flies; however, traps installed in nests containing nestlings successfully captured adult blow flies, suggesting that a specific concentration or combination of cues may be necessary to attract blow flies. Additionally, the number of blow flies per nestling in nests where preen oil was removed from feathers used in nest construction was significantly higher than in control nests, which suggests that preen oil may play a role in masking olfactory cues used by blow flies to locate hosts. No clear influence of the number of occupied neighbouring nest boxes on the density of blow flies in nests was observed, although size (i.e., length) of pupae decreased as the number of occupied neighbouring nest boxes increased. A reduction in available hosts resulted in an increase in the number of blow flies per nestling, and unexpectedly, an increase in the weight of larvae and weight and body length of adults, perhaps because of higher quality hosts acquiring the remaining nest sites over lower quality hosts. The ability of blow fly larvae to feed and acquire resources from nestling tree swallows did not appear to be influenced by previous exposure of hosts to parasites, although lighter larvae were more likely to feed than heavier larvae, and acquired a larger blood meal. There also was evidence that the size of the blood meal varied among species of blow fly. The presence of blow flies in the nest did not appear to influence the rate or time spent performing sanitation behaviour by adult tree swallows, and there was similarly no significant influence of sanitation behaviour of hosts on density or size of blow flies, although there was some suggestion of a negative influence on the length of adult blow flies. Overall, more research is needed to understand better the host location strategies of blow flies. While the influence of hosts on the size of blow flies may be subtle, a positive influence was much more apparent after a reduction in available hosts, which may have unknown effects on future generations of hosts and implications for conservation efforts of hosts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».