Spatial distribution, prevalence and diversity of haemosporidians in the rufous-collared sparrow, Zonotrichia capensis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parasite prevalence and diversity are determined by the distribution of hosts and vectors and by the interplay among a suite of environmental factors. Distributions of parasite lineages vary based on host susceptibility and geographical barriers. Hemoparasites of the genera Haemoproteus and Plasmodium have wide distributions, and high prevalence and genetic diversity within perching birds (Order Passeriformes). The rufous-collared sparrow (Zonotrichia capensis) is widely distributed in Central and South America across an immense diversity of environments from sea level to more than 4000 meters above sea level. It therefore provides an excellent model to investigate whether altitudinal and latitudinal gradients influence the distribution, prevalence and diversity of haemosporidian parasites, their population structure and the biogeographical boundaries of distinct parasite lineages. RESULTS: We assembled samples from 1317 rufous-collared sparrows spanning 75 locales from across Central and South America (between 9.5°N and 54°S; 10-4655 meters above sea level). We used DNA sequence data from a fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene (cytb) of Haemoproteus and Plasmodium from 325 positive samples and found prevalences of 22 and 3%, respectively. Haemoproteus exhibited a higher prevalence than Plasmodium but with comparatively lower genetic diversity. We detected a relationship of Plasmodium and Haemoproteus prevalence with altitude and latitude; however, altitude and latitude did not influence parasite diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Parasite lineages showed a phylogeographical boundary coincident with the Andes Mountains, although we also observed a north-south disjunction in Peru for Haemoproteus. Haemosporidian distribution was not homogeneous but differed based on latitude and altitude. This is most probably due to environmental factors that have influenced both vector distribution and abundance, as well as parasite development. Our study provides key insights on the distribution of haemoparasite lineages and parasite dynamics within hosts.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".