Living apart and having similar trouble: are frog helminth parasites determined by the host or by the habitat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sympatric hosts are exposed to similar ecological conditions, particularly if they are closely related phylogenetically and share some physiological and behavioral traits. We studied the sympatric frogs Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950 and Leptodactylus podicipinus (Cope, 1862) to investigate the extent to which the helminth parasite communities were influenced by host species’ characteristics or habitat location. We described and compared the helminth communities of 50 L. chaquensis and 40 L. podicipinus collected concurrently from two different study sites in Brazil’s Pantanal floodplain. Similarities in the prevalence and mean abundance of helminths were higher among allopatric populations of the same species than among sympatric populations of different species. The effects of host species, size, and habitat on helminth composition were significant. The amount of variance in the helminth community composition explained by host species and size was greater than that explained by host habitat. These results indicate that the main factors determining similarities in parasite species in this study system are the coevolutionary and biological constraints of the host species, which either limit or allow infection of the parasite species despite the host habitat.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".