Host preferences of bat flies: following the bloody path of stable isotopes in a host–parasite food chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all mammals are infested with ectoparasites, but even though parasites may have a strong impact on their host, their host specificity is often unknown. We studied the host preferences of two bat fly species, Strebla wiedemanni Kolenati, 1856 and Trichobius parasiticus Gervais, 1844, identified on the common vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus (E. Geoffroy, 1810), using stable carbon isotopes. Since D. rotundus was part of the C4 food web and other bats sharing the roost with D. rotundus were part of the C3 food web, bat flies were exposed to two isotopically distinct potential hosts. The δ13C values of the two bat fly species collected from D. rotundus were similar (–11.5 ± 1.1 (mean ± SD) for S. wiedemanni and –12.4 ± 1.9 for T. parasiticus) and identified them as members of the C4 food web, although their δ13C value was significantly lower by –1.7 ± 2.6 than that of the corresponding host individual. The δ13C value of bat flies collected from Carollia perspicillata (L., 1758) sharing roosts with D. rotundus averaged –24.2 ± 0.3, which was also significantly lower by –1.3 ± 1.1 than the host's δ13C value. We concluded that the negative shift in δ13C of D. rotundus bat flies relative to the host individual was caused by isotopic fractionation rather than by a mixed diet. The enrichment in nitrogen-15 from S. wiedemanni and T. parasiticus to D. rotundus equaled 2.3, which indicates one trophic step between the host and the parasite. In summary, both bat fly species preferred D. rotundus over other bat species and are therefore truly monoxenous parasites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".