Provenance, guts, and fate: Field and experimental evidence in a host-mistletoe-bird system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory suggests that host—parasite interaction should lead to local adaptation of parasites to their host. In mistletoe—host tree interactions the foraging patterns of fruit-eating birds can play an important role in host local adaptation, depending on the tree species on which the mistletoe fruits were consumed (host provenance) and the tree species on which the mistletoe seeds were deposited (host fate). Yet this interaction has not been previously documented. To determine the effects of host provenance, bird gut processing, and host fate on mistletoe seed germination and seedling establishment of Psittacanthus calyculatus, we conducted a seed inoculation experiment in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Mistletoe fruits were collected from Crataegus pubescens (Cp), Prunus serótina (Ps), and Salix bonplandiana (Sb) and measured. We then manually removed the exocarp and pulp of half the fruits, and the other half were given to grey silky-flycatchers (Ptilogonys cinereus) for gut processing. Obtained seeds of both groups of fruits were measured and deposited on branches of other trees of the same 3 host species in a full factorial design. Mistletoe fruit size varied significantly among host tree species, but differences did not coincide with those in gut retention time. Bird gut processing and the host provenance X host fate interaction were the best predictors for the occurrence of germination and establishment of seedlings. Seed germination and seedling establishment were more likely when seeds were gut processed by birds, but gut retention time had no significant effects. The significant host provenance X host fate interaction was largely due to higher success of mistletoe seeds from Sb to Sb and lower success from Sb to Ps. Our results suggest that to understand the efficiency of infection of P calyculatus and possibly other mistletoe species, the linked effects of the digestive processes undergone by mistletoe seeds and the species of host trees where the seeds were consumed and ultimately deposited should be considered.
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) | 0.000 | 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".