On the efficacy of anti-parasite behaviour: a case study of tadpole susceptibility to cercariae of <i>Echinostoma trivolvis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many animals respond behaviourally to the infective stages of parasites, but the efficacy of such responses in reducing risk of parasitism often is not established. It was found that tadpoles of Rana clamitans Latr., 1801 (green frogs) and R. sylvatica LeConte, 1825 (wood frogs) increased their activity when exposed to live infective stages (cercariae) of the trematode Echinostoma trivolvis Rudolphi, 1809. The susceptibility to parasitism for green frog tadpoles subjected to three different treatments was compared. Tadpoles were housed at 20 °C and allowed to respond to cercariae, held at 6–8 °C and showing reduced behavioural responses, or anesthetized and showing no responses. Low levels of parasitism were found for tadpoles that responded behaviourally to cercariae; such responses are expected to occur under normal field conditions in the absence of factors suppressing activity of tadpoles. We also demonstrate that infectivity of E. trivolvis cercariae to non-responding (anesthetized) wood frog tadpoles was higher at warm than at cool temperatures. Thus, lowered parasitism at warm temperatures in the first experiment likely resulted from host behavioural responses and not from low infectivity of cercariae. These results have implications for observing effects of environmental factors on susceptibility to parasitism where susceptibility is thought or known to be mediated by host behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 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".