Patterns of parasitism in monarch butterflies during the breeding season in eastern <scp>N</scp> orth <scp>A</scp> merica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Migratory behaviour can result in reduced prevalence of pathogens in host populations. Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain this relationship: (i) ‘migratory escape’, where migrants benefit from escaping pathogen accumulation in contaminated environments; and (ii) ‘migratory culling’, where the selective removal of infected individuals occurs during migration. 2. In the host–parasite system between the monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus L inn.) and its obligate protozoan parasite Ophryocystis elektroscirrha ( OE ), there is evidence to support both hypotheses, particularly during the monarchs' autumn migration. However, these processes can operate simultaneously and could vary throughout the monarchs' annual migratory cycle. Assessing the relative strength for each hypothesis has not previously been done. 3. To evaluate both hypotheses, parasite infection prevalence was examined in monarchs sampled in eastern N orth A merica during A pril– S eptember, and stable isotopes (δ 2 H , δ 13 C ) were used to estimate natal origin and infer migration distance. There was stronger support for the migratory escape hypothesis, wherein infection prevalence increased over the breeding season and was higher at southern latitudes, where the breeding season tends to be longer compared with northern latitudes. Little support was found for the migratory culling hypothesis, as infection prevalence was similar whether monarchs travelled shorter or longer distances. 4. These results suggest that migration allows individuals to escape parasites not only during the autumn, as shown in previous work, but during the monarchs' spring and summer movements when they recolonise the breeding range. These results imply a potential fitness advantage to monarchs that migrate further north to exploit parasite‐free habitats.
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) | 0.001 | 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".