Living on a catfish: nested occupation of ectosymbiotic chironomids on host body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symbiotic species often have preferential attachment sites on their host body and thus some sites may only be occupied if the supposed best sites are already occupied. Alternatively, colonization may be similar in all sites, but removal may differ among them. Both mechanisms might generate a nested pattern. Moreover, the host size can alter the quality of the site for symbiotic occupation; for instance, by increasing the area and anchorage structures or reducing removal. We predicted that the spatial distribution of the ectosymbiotic chironomid Ichthyocladius lilianae Mendes, Andersen and Sæther, 2004 on their host, the armored catfish Pareiorhaphis hypselurus (Pereira and Reis, 2002), would present a nested pattern with regards to body-part preference and variation according to host size. We found that (i) suboptimal sites on the host body were usually only occupied by a symbiont when the optimal sites were already occupied and (ii) sites occupied by larvae on small host body surface were a subset of the sites occupied on large hosts. Our results indicate a nested distribution, yet the mechanisms generating this pattern are unclear. One possibility is that symbionts have preferential sites for attachment on the host body surface and compete for these sites. As an alternative, symbionts may present no preference and colonize equally all sites, but they remain attached to sites that offer better resources or protection from removal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".