Can Mixed-Species Groups Reduce Individual Parasite Load? A Field Test with Two Closely Related Poeciliid Fishes (Poecilia reticulata and Poecilia picta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predation and parasitism are two of the most important sources of mortality in nature. By forming groups, individuals can gain protection against predators but may increase their risk of being infected with contagious parasites. Animals might resolve this conflict by forming mixed-species groups thereby reducing the costs associated with parasites through a relative decrease in available hosts. We tested this hypothesis in a system with two closely related poeciliid fishes (Poecilia reticulata and Poecilia picta) and their host-specific monogenean ectoparasites (Gyrodactylus spp.) in Trinidad. Fish from three different rivers were sampled from single and mixed-species groups, measured and scanned for Gyrodactylus. The presence and abundance of Gyrodactylus were lower when fish of both species were part of mixed-species groups relative to single-species groups. This is consistent with the hypothesis that mixed-species groups provide a level of protection against contagious parasites. We discuss the importance of potentially confounding factors such as salinity and individual fish size.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".