Allopatric distribution of generalist parasites: interplay between postglacial dispersal and host species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispersal of freshwater mussels occurs when the larvae parasitize fishes. In northeastern North America, distributions of floater mussels ( Pyganodon spp.) are allopatric and arranged in an east–west pattern that corresponds poorly with the biogeographic patterns of the regional fish fauna. This study aims at determining whether associations with distinct fish species can explain the distribution of floaters. Here, we devised a framework based on a series of novel distributional null models to elucidate dispersal of species that are dependent on host species. The distributional patterns of floaters were tested by controlling for associations with fishes, while host–parasite associations were assessed with null models based on co-occurrence patterns. The disjoint distribution of the giant floater ( Pyganodon grandis ) and the eastern floater ( Pyganodon cataracta ) could not be explained by their association with distinct host fish and is likely the result of associations with distinct host populations rather than distinct species. In contrast, the distribution of the Newfoundland floater ( Pyganodon fragilis ) could be explained by its association with euryhaline fishes. Such associations may have also promoted differentiation with its sister taxa, the eastern floater. This study demonstrated the effects of positive biological associations on distributional patterns and the utility of a null model framework to uncover them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".