When a beetle is too small to carry phoretic mites? A case of hydrophilid beetles (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae) and<i>Uropoda orbicularis</i>(Acari: Mesostigmata)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of our study was to determine the limit of a beetle’s body size below which it is not able to carry phoretic mites. We tested the hypothesis that body size of the carrier is the vital factor in selecting a host in mites with facultative and nonspecific phoresy. The study was conducted on beetles of the family Hydrophilidae and deutonymphs of the mite Uropoda orbicularis (Müller, 1776). Among 20 species of hydrophilids collected, only 7 carried deutonymphs. The smallest hydrophilids with body lengths below 2.32 mm did not carry deutonymphs. These were Cercyon analis (Paykull, 1798), Cercyon nigriceps (Marsham, 1802), Cercyon pygmaeus (Illiger, 1801), Cercyon terminatus (Marsham, 1802), Cryptopleurum crenatum (Kugelann, 1794), Cryptopleurum minutum (Fabricius, 1775), Cryptopleurum subtile Sharp, 1884, and Megasternum concinnum (Marsham, 1802). On the contrary, the largest beetles, of the genus Sphaeridium Fabricius, 1775, were most heavily and frequently occupied by phoretic deutonymphs. Most representatives of the genus Cercyon Leach, 1817 did not carry mites or had a very low mite burden. Our study indicates that beetle infestation by nonspecific phoretic mites is strongly influenced by beetle body size.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".