Feather mites and birds: an interaction mediated by uropygial gland size?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feather mites (Arachnida: Acari: Astigmata) feed mainly on secretions of the uropygial gland of birds. Here, we use analyses corrected for phylogeny and body size to show that there is a positive correlation between the size of this gland and mite abundance in passerine birds at an interspecific level during the breeding season, suggesting that the gland mediates interactions between mites and birds. As predicted on the basis of hypothesized waterproofing and antibiotic functions of uropygial gland secretions, riparian/marsh bird species had larger glands and higher mite loads than birds living in less mesic terrestrial environments. An unexpected pattern was a steeper relationship between mite load and gland size in migratory birds than in residents. If moderate mite loads are beneficial to a host but high loads detrimental, this could create complex selection regimes in which gland size influences mite load and vice versa. Mites may exert selective pressures on gland size of their hosts that has resulted in smaller glands among migratory bird species, suggesting that smaller glands may have evolved in these birds to attenuate a possible detrimental effect of feather mites when present in large numbers.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".