Host diet influences parasite diversity: a case study looking at tapeworm diversity among sharks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 605:1-16 (2018) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12751 FEATURE ARTICLE Host diet influences parasite diversity: a case study looking at tapeworm diversity among sharks Trent K. Rasmussen1,*, Haseeb S. Randhawa1,2,3,4 1Ecology Degree Programme, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand 2Present address: Falkland Islands Fisheries Department, Directorate of Natural Resources, Falkland Islands Government, Bypass Road, Stanley FIQQ 1ZZ, Falkland Islands 3Present address: South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute, PO Box 609, Stanley Cottage, Stanley FIQQ 1ZZ, Falkland Islands 4Present address: New Brunswick Museum, 277 Douglas Avenue, Saint John, New Brunswick E2K 1E5, Canada *Corresponding author: t.k.rasmussen@outlook.com ABSTRACT: In theory, animal diets may act as important filters for different parasite species. However, there is currently a lack of empirical research looking at host diet as a potential predictor of parasite diversity among different host species. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of several host diet features (including diet breadth, diet composition, and trophic level) on tapeworm diversity in sharks, relative to other key factors, including host size, habitat, phylogeny, latitude, and depth. Data on these host features were compiled from a comprehensive analysis of literature records including 91 different shark species, and 3 measures of tapeworm diversity were examined: tapeworm species richness, tapeworm taxonomic distinctness (TD), and variance in tapeworm TD. The diet breadth of a shark species was revealed to be a better predictor of tapeworm species richness than other host features examined to date. Host size, trophic level, diet TD, latitudinal range, and the mid-point of a shark's depth range also significantly influenced tapeworm richness when analyses were adjusted to prevent confounding by phylogenetic relationships between hosts. The TD of tapeworm assemblages was influenced by diet breadth, diet TD, host size, and depth range when analysed independently of host phylogeny. Overall, our findings demonstrate that aspects of host diet have important consequences for parasite diversity in sharks. We emphasise that studies of parasite diversity in other systems should more seriously consider including aspects of host diet (particularly diet breadth) as potential key predictors of parasite diversity. KEY WORDS: Sharks · Cestodes · Tapeworms · Species richness · Diet · Species diversity · Taxonomic distinctness · Phylogenetically independent contrasts Full text in pdf format Information about this Feature Article Supplementary material NextCite this article as: Rasmussen TK, Randhawa HS (2018) Host diet influences parasite diversity: a case study looking at tapeworm diversity among sharks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 605:1-16. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12751 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 605. Online publication date: October 26, 2018 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2018 Inter-Research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".