Environmental and ecological factors driving trematode parasite community assembly in central Alberta lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasites have been neglected from most biodiversity surveys even though they are an essential component of ecosystems and intimately associated with the free-living communities within them. Parasites with complex life cycles, such as digenean trematode flatworms, utilize at least two host species within an ecosystem for their development and transmission, taking advantage of species networks to complete their life cycles. Despite this knowledge, our understanding of the processes that contribute to parasite community assembly, and which limit their geographic distributions, are rudimentary, including the importance of host diversity. Utilizing recent advancements in the identification of cryptic trematode species through molecular barcoding, we examined patterns of community assembly involving 79 species in six Alberta lakes over three years. Specifically, we focused on spatiotemporal variation in trematode diversity within their snail first intermediate hosts (component communities), how this might relate to host diversity through the specificity of host-parasite relationships, and the role of certain environmental factors in structuring these communities. We found substantial natural fluctuations of trematode communities through space and time within these lakes. Trematode communities were diverse, showing an overall positive relationship with snail diversity, but were often dominated by a few common species. We found that ecoregion and lake trophic status were key predictors for the presence of these trematode species. Such information is key for understanding how biodiversity alterations may affect parasite community composition, as well as our ability to formulate predictive models, by considering how this could influence both species richness and evenness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".