MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189930456 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.3709

Weighing the predictors: host traits and coinfecting species both explain variation in parasitism of Rock Ptarmigan

2021· article· en· W3189930456 on OpenAlexafffund
André Morrill, Ólafur K. Nielsen, Ute Stenkewitz, Guðný Rut Pálsdóttir, Mark R. Forbes, Karl Skírnisson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyParasitismHost (biology)Parasite hostingGenetic variationZoologyEcologyEvolutionary biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Testing hypotheses in ecological and evolutionary parasitology can require testing whether host traits or coinfecting parasites explain variation in parasitism by focal species. However, when host traits and coinfecting parasites are considered separately, relations between either and parasitism by focal species can be spurious—a problem that is addressed when both are considered together. We assessed whether abundances of focal parasites related to host age/sex and coinfecting parasites for three endoparasites and nine ectoparasites of Icelandic Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) collected over 12 yr (2006–2017), and quantified the variation in focal parasitism explained by these predictors. Host traits and coinfecting parasites explained significant variation in abundance of all nine focal parasite species for which models converged, when those models were based on groups of parasites sharing tissue tropism and/or transmission pathways and included year as a random effect. We found a single spurious relation: a host age–sex interaction effect that was removed once concurrent parasitism was considered. When considering focal parasites within groups of coinfecting parasites, we found cases of positive, negative, and lacks of correlations. The amount of variation in focal parasite abundance explained by host traits versus coinfecting parasites depended on the focal parasite and its group. Overall variation explained was both related to the prevalence of the focal parasite, possibly due to underlying parasite aggregation, and similar to variation explained in other models in ecology and evolution. We conclude that host traits and coinfecting parasites often combine to determine infection by focal species. Future studies should also explore the mechanisms underlying parasite–parasite relations and their potential impacts on host demography for this and other study associations, and assess relative effects of host traits and coinfecting parasites on focal parasitism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207