MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence of <i>Aeromonas hydrophila</i> in relation to timing and duration of breeding in three species of ranid frogs

2004· article· en· W2542534825 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mark R. Forbes, David McRuer, Pamela L. Rutherford

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAeromonas hydrophilaZoologySeasonal breederEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract:Species of temperate ranid frogs differ in ways (e.g., habitat preferences, timing and duration of their breeding seasons) that could influence their susceptibility to parasites and pathogens. In this study, we compared the prevalence of Aeromonas hydrophila in breeding adults of bull frogs (Rana catesbeiana), green frogs (R. clamitans), and leopard frogs (R. pipiens) from a region in eastern Ontario. Adult R. pipiens had a higher prevalence of A. hydrophila than either R. clamitans or R. catesbeiana, but there were no differences between sexes. There was also a trend for a decline in prevalence of A. hydrophila over the breeding seasons of all three species. Reduced immune ability soon after emergence from hibernation could explain the higher prevalence of A. hydrophila earlier in the season. The higher prevalence in R. pipiens may be a function of earlier and contracted breeding in this species. The expected high stress during breeding for this species could have implications for its relative susceptibility to other disease agents that share routes of infection with A. hydrophila or that are challenged by the same components of the immune system.Résumé:Les espèces de grenouilles de la famille des Ranidés des régions tempérées ont des particularités (habitats, période et durée de la saison de reproduction) qui peuvent influencer leur prédisposition à être infectées par des parasites et des organismes pathogènes. Dans cette étude, nous comparons la fréquence de la présence de Aeromonas hydrophila chez des adultes reproducteurs de ouaouarons (Rana catesbeiana), de grenouilles vertes (R. clamitans) et de grenouilles léopards (R. pipiens) dans l’Est de l’Ontario. La présence de A. hydrophila est plus fréquente ches les grenouilles léopards adultes que chez les grenouilles vertes ou les ouaouarons. Aucune différence n’est toutefois observée entre les sexes. La fréquence de la présence de A. hydrophila diminue généralement au cours de la saison de reproduction chez les trois espèces de grenouilles. Cette tendance s’expliquerait par la plus faible immunité des grenouilles face à la bactérie lors de leur émergence après l’hibernation. Les grenouilles léopards seraient plus sujettes à l’infection que les autres espèces notamment en raison de leur saison de reproduction plus hâtive et plus courte. Il est possible que le niveau de stress élevé que doivent subir les grenouilles léopards pendant la reproduction ait des effets sur leur sensibilité face à d’autres agents pathogènes qui partagent les mêmes voies d’infection que A. hydrophila ou qui sont combattus par les mêmes composantes du système immunitaire.Key Words: amphibiansbacteriabreedingimmune functionstress.Mots-clés:: amphibiensbactériefonctions immunitairesreproductionstress.Nomenclature:: Crother2000. Notes1 Associate Editor: Patrick Thomas Gregory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207