Diffuse coevolution: constraints on a generalist parasite favor use of a dead‐end host
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many evolutionary models and empirical studies of parasite‐host interactions consider single species of parasites exploiting single host species. However, many parasites are generalists in that they parasitize more than one host species (often many more) and establish associations with other hosts that cannot be described as true parasitism. We identify such an association, explain how constraints may maintain it, and indicate why such diffuse interactions are deserving of attention. We describe the use of two closely related Sympetrum dragonfly species by larvae of the water mite Arrenurus planus Marshall. Adults of one dragonfly species are resistant whereas adults of the other species are almost wholly susceptible to A. planus . However, A. planus attaches as often to the resistant host as it does to the susceptible host species when relative abundance and seasonal timing of adult emergence of both species is considered. We present evidence that mites track the susceptible host and are most active early in the season, when early‐emerging unsuitable hosts are also present. Thus, use of resistant hosts appears an unavoidable outcome of constraints promoting discovery and use of susceptible hosts. Such findings have implications for studies of local adaptation and host switching.
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".