Comparative host–parasite population structures: disentangling prospecting and dispersal in the black‐legged kittiwake<i>Rissa tridactyla</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although much insight is to be gained through the comparison of the population genetic structures of parasites and hosts, there are, at present, few studies that take advantage of the information on vertebrate life histories available through the consideration of their parasites. Here, we examined the genetic structure of a colonial seabird, the black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) using seven polymorphic microsatellite markers to make inferences about population functioning and intercolony dispersal. We sampled kittiwakes from 22 colonies across the species' range and, at the same time, collected individuals of one of its common ectoparasites, the tick Ixodes uriae. Parasites were genotyped at eight microsatellite markers and the population genetic structure of host and parasite were compared. Kittiwake populations are only genetically structured at large spatial scales and show weak patterns of isolation by distance. This may be due to long-distance dispersal events that erase local patterns of population subdivision. However, important additional information is gained by comparing results with those of the parasite. In particular, tick populations are strongly structured at regional scales and show a stepping-stone pattern of gene flow. Due to the parasite's life history, its population structure is directly linked to the frequency and spatial extent of within-breeding season movements of kittiwakes. The comparison of host and parasite gene flow therefore helps us to disentangle the intercolony movements of birds from that of true dispersal events (movement followed by reproduction). In addition, such data can provide essential elements for predicting the outcome of local co-evolutionary interactions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".