Detrimental effects of larval blow flies (<i>Protocalliphora</i> <i>azurea</i>) on nestlings and breeding success of Tree Sparrows (<i>Passer montanus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of bloodsucking parasitic larvae of the blow fly Protocalliphora azurea (Fallén, 1817) (Diptera) on Tree Sparrow, Passer montanus (L., 1758), breeding success was studied in populations breeding in nest boxes in southwestern Slovakia. Out of 52 examined nests only seven broods (13%) were unparasitized. The mean number of larvae per parasitized nest was 22.6 and the total number of parasites per nest ranged from 1 to 80. Large numbers of blow fly larvae and pupae significantly influenced nestling survival and fledging success. In broods with parasite load per chick higher than nine, at least one nestling died. To record the effects of parasites on the body size of nestlings of different ages, nestlings were measured on days 5, 10, and 13 post hatch. First and second broods were analysed separately. A significant negative effect of parasite load per nestling on the body mass, wing length, tarsal length, and tail length of nestlings was found in the second broods only in the 10- and 13-day-old chicks. Tree Sparrow parents did not prolong nestling provisioning time per nestling, as there was no negative relationship between parasite load per nestling and feeding period. Contradictory to most previous studies of the genus Protocalliphora, the present study suggests that these parasites have an important negative impact on the breeding success of the studied Tree Sparrow 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 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".