Variation in physiological health of diademed sifakas across intact and fragmented forest at Tsinjoarivo, eastern Madagascar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As undisturbed habitat becomes increasingly rare, managers charged with ensuring the survival of endangered primate species must increasingly utilize disturbed and degraded habitats in species survival plans. Yet we have an imperfect understanding of the true long-term viability of primate populations in disturbed habitat, and census data can be misleading because density is not necessarily correlated with habitat quality and population viability in predictable ways. Here we present clinical laboratory data on hematology, serum biochemistry, fat-soluble vitamins, minerals, iron analytes, viral serology, and parasitology of diademed sifaka (Propithecus diadema), derived from the capture of 26 individuals spanning eight groups and two habitats (undisturbed vs. disturbed and fragmented) at Tsinjoarivo, Madagascar. Blood from fragment individuals had significantly lower values for several factors: white blood cell counts, bilirubin, total protein, albumin, calcium, sodium, chloride, manganese, zinc, iron and total iron-binding capacity. Several biochemical variables were higher in immature individuals, probably due to active growth. The large number of interhabitat differences suggests that habitat disturbance has an impact on physiological health within this population, perhaps reflecting dietary stress and/or immunosuppression. These results, combined with previous data showing altered diet, slower juvenile growth, and reduced activity in disturbed forest fragments, suggest that fragment sifakas may be less healthy than continuous forest groups. Finally, Tsinjoarivo sifakas have extremely low blood urea nitrogen (perhaps reflecting protein limitation) and selenium levels relative to other lemurs. Despite their survival and reproduction in the short term in fragments, these sifakas may represent a riskier conservation investment than conspecifics in undisturbed forest, and may be more susceptible to environmental stressors. However, more data on the fitness consequences of these biochemical differences are needed for a better interpretation of their impacts on long-term viability prospects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".