Of mice, ticks, and fleas: host behaviour and co-occurring parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Host behaviour should be a key determinant of the acquisition of “sit-and-wait” and nidicolous ectoparasitic arthropods that ambush the host in their environment and/or nest. Here, we tested the association between parasitism and individual differences in exploratory and grooming behaviours in white-footed mice ( Peromyscus leucopus (Rafinesque, 1818)), the primary host for the black-legged tick ( Ixodes scapularis Say, 1821) in its larval stage. During 4333 captures of 1035 individual mice over five summers (2016–2020) in Ontario, Canada, the probability and intensity of tick parasitism were both significantly higher when the mouse was also parasitized by fleas, suggesting co-occurrence of these two parasites on host mice. Distance moved by mice in a novel environment was negatively and positively affected by tick and flea parasitism, respectively. Interestingly, there was a significant “tick × flea” statistical interaction on distance moved, such that fleas were positively associated with activity/exploration only when ticks were absent. There was no relationship between grooming behaviour and parasite presence. This study suggests that co-occurring parasite species (ticks and fleas) may differentially affect their host's behaviour depending on the presence/absence of the other parasite on the host. Alternatively, host behaviour may differentially affect individual susceptibility to being infested with ticks, fleas, or both.
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".