On understanding seasonal increases in damselfly defence and resistance against ectoparasitic mites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. Defence against parasites and pathogens can be essential, yet not all hosts respond similarly to parasitic challenge. Environmental conditions are thought to explain variation in host responses to parasites. 2. Lestes forcipatus damselflies emerging later in the season have shown higher resistance to the mite, Arrenurus planus , than hosts emerging earlier. This study was undertaken to determine whether variation in environmental temperatures characteristic of early vs. late emergence times, degree or costs of mite parasitism, and/or size of newly emerged adults could explain seasonal variation in defence and resistance to ectoparasitic mites. 3. In this study damselflies from early vs. late emergence groups differed in size at emergence and mite intensity. In general, early hosts were larger and had more mites than later hosts. However only experimental temperatures experienced by damselflies at emergence influenced defence and resistance against mites and not host size or degree of parasitism. 4. More specifically, hosts from early and late emergence groups did not differ in defence and resistance when held at the same temperatures in incubators. Housing at a high temperature, indicative of later in the season, was associated with higher defence and resistance for damselflies from both early and late emergence groups. 5. These results indicate that daily temperatures in relation to emergence timing can account for seasonal increases in resistance for this temperate insect. Seasonal increases in resistance may be expected for other temperate insect–parasite associations and should have important implications for the phenology of parasites and for seasonal variation in parasite‐mediated selection.
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".