Forming foci of transmission: the effects of resource utilization, species interaction, and parasitism on molluscan movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal aggregation to environmental cues provides opportunities for parasite transmission between individual hosts of the same or different species. Better characterization of host behavioral responses to environmental stimuli in the absence and presence of parasites will improve our understanding of how foci of transmission form. The behavioral response patterns of two co-occurring freshwater snail species ( Lymnaea elodes (Say, 1821) and Helisoma trivolvis (Say, 1817) (= Planorbella trivolvis (Say, 1817))) were assessed in response to three environmental stimuli (crayfish (genus Orconectes Cope, 1872) carrion, vegetation, or temperature gradient). Experiments were conducted with single species and species interactions. In addition, parasitized L. elodes were included in a single-species experiment and a species-interaction experiment. Snail species differed in the direction and magnitude of their responses to the environmental stimuli. Species interactions did not affect the responses to two of the stimuli for either species; however, interspecific interactions affected the response to high temperature in both species. Behavioral responses were altered in the presence of parasites for both the infected and uninfected hosts, suggesting parasitism is an important biotic factor in animal movement. This experimental study indicates co-occurring species respond to environmental factors in different ways. Furthermore, species interactions and parasitism within a guild can have strong effects on animal movement and potentially on parasite transmission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".