Myxozoan Communities in Two Cyprinid Fishes from Mesotrophic and Eutrophic Rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined community structure among myxozoan species in fish. Herein myxozoan communities are described from 2 cyprinid species, the spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) and the common shiner (Luxilus cornutus), from mesotrophic and eutrophic localities in rivers in southwestern Quebec, Canada. Four myxozoan species were found, and total prevalence ranged from 60 to 86.7% in spottail shiners at 4 localities along the Richelieu River. Component species richness ranged from 2 to 4 and mean infracommunity richness from 0.87 to 1.47. Prevalence, component species richness, and infracommunity species richness in the spottail shiner were comparable to those from other localities in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River that were exposed to municipal effluents. Nine myxozoan species were found in common shiners from the Bras d'Henri micro-watershed. Component species richness varied from 6 to 8 at 4 localities, with total prevalence being 100% at all localities except 1, where it was 80%. Mean infracommunity richness ranged from 1.73 to 2.27. Prevalence, component species richness, and infracommunity species richness in the common shiner from the Bras d'Henri micro-watershed were among the highest observed for myxozoan communities from any host species to date. It is concluded that moderate levels of eutrophication are sufficient to generate species-rich communities of myxozoan parasites in fishes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".