MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phenology determines seasonal variation in ectoparasite loads in a natural insect population

2010· article· en· W2101135342 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Hassall, Chris Lowe, Ian F. Harvey, Phillip C. Watts, D. J. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Entomology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMiteEctothermPhenologyEcologyZoologyPopulationAcariDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. The extent to which individuals are parasitised is a function of exposure to parasites and the immune response, which in ectotherms may be associated with temperature. 2. We test the hypothesis that seasonal variation in ectoparasite burden is driven by temperature using an extensive mark‐release‐recapture study of adult Coenagrion puella (L.) (Zygoptera) as a model system. Mite counts were taken both at capture and on a subset of subsequent recaptures over two entire, consecutive breeding seasons. 3. Emergence date was the most significant factor in determining individual differences in mite burden, and mean counts for individuals emerging on the same days showed strong unimodal relationships with time of season. Subsequent recounting of mites on a subset of individuals showed that patterns of loss of mites were similar between seasons. 4. While temperature did not significantly affect mite burdens within seasons and ectoparasite prevalence was very similar across the two seasons, intensity of infection and rate of mite gain in unparasitised individuals were significantly higher in the cooler season. 5. We demonstrate that, while temperature may modulate the invertebrate immune response, this modulation does not manifest in variations in mite burdens in natural populations.

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 score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological EntomologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207