Hosts, parasites, and their interactions respond to climatic variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Although there is a vast body of literature on the causes of variation in species composition in ecological communities, less effort has been invested in understanding how interactions between these species vary. Since interactions are crucial to the structure and functioning of ecological communities, we need to develop a better understanding of their spatial distribution. Here, we investigate whether species interactions vary more in response to different climate variables, than individual species do. Location: Eurasia. Time period: 2000s. Major taxa: Animalia. Methods: We used a measure of Local Contribution to Beta-Diversity to evaluate the compositional uniqueness of 51 host–parasite communities of rodents and their ectoparasitic fleas across Eurasia, using publicly available data. We measured uniqueness based on the species composition, and based on potential and realized biotic interactions (here, host-parasite interactions). Results: We show that species interactions vary more, across space, than species do. In particular, we show that species interactions respond to some climatic variables that have no effect on species distributions or dissimilarity. Main conclusions: Species interactions capture some degree of variation which is not apparent when looking at species occurrences only. In this system, this appeared as hosts and parasites interacting in different ways as a reponse to different environments, especially the temperature and dryness. We discuss the implications of this finding for the amount of information that should be considered when measuring community dissimilarity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".