Effects of fleas on nest success of Arctic barnacle geese: experimentally testing the mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasites have detrimental effects on their hosts’ fitness. Therefore, behavioural adaptations have evolved to avoid parasites or, when an individual is already in contact with a parasite, prevent or minimize infections. Such anti‐parasite behaviours can be very effective, but can also be costly for the host. Specifically, ectoparasites can elicit strong host anti‐parasite behaviours and interactions between fleas (Siphonaptera) and their hosts are one of the best studied. In altricial bird species, nest fleas can negatively affect both parent and offspring fitness components. However, knowledge on the effects of fleas on precocial bird species is scarce. Research on geese in the Canadian Arctic indicated that fleas have a negative impact on reproductive success. One possible hypothesis is that fleas may affect female incubation behaviour. Breeding females with many fleas in their nest may increase the frequency and/or duration of incubation breaks and could even totally desert their nest. The aim of our study was to 1) determine if a similar negative relationship existed between flea abundance and reproductive success in our study colony of Arctic breeding barnacle geese Branta leucopsis and 2) experimentally quantify if such effects could be explained by a negative effect of nest fleas on female behaviour. We compared host anti‐parasite and incubation behaviour between experimentally flea‐reduced and control nests using wildlife cameras and temperature loggers. We found that flea abundance was negatively associated with hatching success. We found little experimental support, however, for changes in behaviour of the breeding female as a possible mechanism to explain this effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".