Do invasive bullfrogs in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, show evidence of parasite release?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined vertebrate models of invasive species to explore parasite release as a proposed mechanism through which host species might become invasive. In this study, we examined evidence for parasite release in invasive American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana/Lithobates catesbeianus) from five sites in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. We examined helminth species richness, as well as the prevalence, intensity and abundance of lung and kidney fluke infections. These flukes are expected to impose costs on host survival, growth and reproductive output. We compared measures of these parasite taxa with bullfrogs from Ontario and New Brunswick where they are endemic. Helminth species richness in bullfrogs from the Victoria sites was lower than in Ontario bullfrogs, but comparable to reported indices for other endemic populations. The prevalence of lung flukes (Haematoloechus spp.) in bullfrogs from Victoria was twice as high as was observed in the Ontario bullfrogs, and higher than has been reported from other endemic locations. In four of the five study sites in Victoria, numbers of Echinostoma spp. kidney cysts were lower than observed in endemic populations; however, the fifth site had uncharacteristically high numbers of cysts. In this study, there did not appear to be clear evidence to support parasite release using either parasite species numbers, or infection by specific parasite taxa. Instead, the invasive bullfrogs demonstrated high parasite species richness and high levels of infection for parasites known to be harmful to their hosts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".