Parasitism, movement, and distribution of the snail <i>Diloma subrostrata</i> (Trochidae) in a soft-sediment intertidal zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite reports of their effects on host reproduction, growth, survival, and habitat use, the role of parasites in determining community structure is still poorly understood. Trematode infections in snails are a ubiquitous feature of intertidal systems worldwide. In this study, the influence of a trematode parasite on the movement and dispersal of the trochid snail Diloma subrostrata on a soft-sediment shore is examined using markrecapture experiments. The natural densities and shell widths of the snail peak between the upper and lower portions of the intertidal zone; marked snails were released within this area. Parasitized snails tended to have larger shells than nonparasitized conspecifics, and larger snails tended to move a greater linear distance than smaller snails in the 24 h following their marking and release. After shell width was corrected for, parasitized snails were found to move a significantly shorter distance than nonparasitized snails. In addition, the mean direction chosen by parasitized snails was almost parallel to the water's edge, whereas that taken by nonparasitized snails was almost directly toward the upper portion of the intertidal zone. Although the mean directions taken by the two types of snails were statistically different, the considerable scatter in the distributions of directions taken by individual snails casts a doubt over the biological significance of the result. Without detailed knowledge of the parasite's full life cycle it is difficult to determine whether this small bias in the direction of dispersal is an adaptive manipulation of snail behaviour by the parasitic trematode. Nevertheless, these results show that the trematode limits the range of movement, and possibly the direction of movement, of parasitized D. subrostrata, and can therefore contribute to the spatial structuring of the snail population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".