Positive and negative effects of phoretic mites on the reproductive output of an invasive bark beetle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When multiple species coexist upon a single host, their combined effect on the host can be unpredictable. We explored the effect of phoretic mites on the reproductive output of the five-spined bark beetle, Ips grandicollis. Using correlative approaches and experimental manipulation of mite numbers we examined how mite load affected the number, size and condition of bark beetle offspring produced. We found that mites have both negative and positive consequences on different aspects of bark beetle reproduction. Females from which mites were removed were more fecund and produced larger offspring than females with mites, implying a cost of mite loads. However, when mites were present on females, those bearing the highest mite loads produced offspring that were larger and in better condition, indicating a beneficial effect of mites. These data suggest that phoretic interactions between mites and bark beetles differ over the course of the host’s lifespan, with either the mites interacting in different ways with different life stages of the host (parasitic on adult, mutualistic with larvae), and/or the beetles being host to different mite assemblages over their lifetime.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".