Host space, not energy or symbiont size, constrains feather mite abundance across passerine bird species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehending symbiont abundance among host species is a major ecological endeavour, and the metabolic theory of ecology has been proposed to understand what constrains symbiont populations. We parameterized metabolic theory equations to investigate how bird species' body size and the body size of their feather mites relate to mite abundance according to four potential energy (uropygial gland size) and space constraints (wing area, total length of barbs and number of feather barbs). Predictions were compared with the empirical scaling of feather mite abundance across 106 passerine bird species (26,604 individual birds sampled), using phylogenetic modelling and quantile regression. Feather mite abundance was strongly constrained by host space (number of feather barbs) but not by energy. Moreover, feather mite species' body size was unrelated to the body size of their host species. We discuss the implications of our results for our understanding of the bird-feather mite system and for symbiont abundance in general.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".