Abundance and stability are species traits for four chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Menoponidae, Philopteridae) on feral pigeons,<i>Columba livia</i>(Aves: Columbiformes: Columbidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Population parameters of ectoparasites on feral pigeons,Columba liviaGmelin (Aves: Columbiformes: Columbidae), were estimated from 1995–2012 in southern Manitoba, Canada. The ectoparasites are chewing lice (Phthiraptera): Philopteridae –Campanulotes compar(Burmeister),Columbicola columbae(Linnaeus), andColoceras tovornikaeTendeiro; Menoponidae –Hohorstiella lata(Piaget). We tested the hypotheses that both abundance and population stability are species-specific traits. Over 10 years, the four species of lice had distinct population dynamics.Campanulotes comparandC. columbaewere more abundant thanC. tovornikaeandH. lata, had higher male to female sex ratios and higher ratios of nymphs to females, different levels of aggregation, and more stable populations.Campanulotes comparwas more prevalent thanC. columbaeand its prevalence was more stable, and the two species also showed differences in the levels and stabilities of male and nymph to female ratios.Coloceras tovornikaehad a higher prevalence and male to female sex ratio thanH. lata, but the two species showed similar levels of stability for these parameters. The level of stability of these populations was relatively high compared with many other organisms, and in particular higher than for plant ectoparasites (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Although the four species occupy similar habitats, often on the same bird, and three of the four feed in a similar way, the population biology of each species is distinct. The life history traits that lead to these differences have yet to be determined.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".