Abundance of chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Amblycera and Ischnocera) increases with the body size of their host woodpeckers and sapsuckers (Aves: Piciformes: Picidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Specimens of five species of woodpeckers (Piciformes: Picidae) from Manitoba, Canada, were weighed and examined for chewing lice, 1998–2015: downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens (Linnaeus), n=49), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus (Linnaeus), n=23), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus (Linnaeus), n=10), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus (Linnaeus), n=170), and yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius (Linnaeus), n=239). The relationship between body mass of each host species and infestation by seven species of lice was analysed: Menacanthus pici (Denny) from all host species, Brueelia straminea (Denny) from Picoides Lacépède species, Penenirmus jungens (Kellogg) from northern flicker, Penenirmus auritus (Scopoli) from the other four hosts, Picicola porisma Dalgleish from northern flicker, Picicola snodgrassi (Kellogg) from Picoides species, and Picicola marginatulus (Harrison) from pileated woodpeckers. Mean abundance of lice increased with the mean mass of their host. Neither the species richness of lice nor the prevalence of lice were related to host body mass. Host body mass explained 98% of the variation in mean intensity of louse infestation among hosts. The positive association of mean intensity and body size was also detected for three genera of lice. Louse intensity also increased with body size for individual birds, more so for some species of lice and hosts than others. Body size matters, but the adaptations that allow higher mean intensity on larger host species remain 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".