MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970887803 · doi:10.1017/s0031182008005234

Unique biological rhythm in the reproductive behaviour of female ticks of reptiles

2009· article· en· W1970887803 on OpenAlexaff
Neil B. Chilton, C. Michael Bull, Ross H. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueParasitology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDiapauseZoologyHatchingRhythmEcologyphotoperiodismLarvaHost (biology)BotanyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the discovery of a biological rhythm in the reproductive behaviour of the tick Bothriocroton hydrosauri that was absent in Amblyomma limbatum, a species that occurs on the same species of reptile host. Female B. hydrosauri mated in autumn or winter delayed oviposition until the following spring, while there was no diapause in conspecific females mated in spring or early summer. Initiation of ovipositional diapause in ticks is usually related to photoperiodic stimuli, but this was not the case for B. hydrosauri. The sinusoidal pattern in pre-oviposition times of B. hydrosauri females mated in different months in the laboratory suggests an internal seasonal time-keeping mechanism. We hypothesize that hormones imbibed by females during their bloodmeal may provide environmental cues associated with the induction of diapause. Irrespective of the mechanism underlying the rhythm, diapause by B. hydrosauri females mated during autumn or winter is of adaptive advantage because it synchronizes oviposition with favourable environmental conditions for egg hatching and increases the chance of larvae finding a host. The lack of a similar biological rhythm in A. limbatum may be a reflection of the different environmental conditions this species experiences throughout most of its range as compared with B. hydrosauri.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParasitologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207