High‐resolution environmental and host‐related factors impacting questing <i>Ixodes scapularis</i> at their northern range edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The geographic range of tick populations has expanded in Canada due to climate warming and the associated poleward range shifts of their vertebrate hosts. Abiotic factors, such as temperature, precipitation, and snow, are known to directly affect tick abundance. Yet, biotic factors, such as the abundance and diversity of mammal hosts, may also alter tick abundance and consequent tick‐borne disease risk. Here, we incorporated host surveillance data with high‐resolution environmental data to evaluate the combined impact of abiotic and biotic factors on questing Ixodes scapularis abundance in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. High‐resolution abiotic factors were derived from remote sensing satellites and meteorological towers, while biotic factors related to mammal hosts were derived from active surveillance data that we collected in the field. Generalized additive models were used to determine the relative importance of abiotic and biotic factors on questing I. scapularis abundance. Combinations of abiotic and biotic factors were identified as important drivers of abundances of questing I. scapularis. Positive and negative linear relationships were found for questing I. scapularis abundance with monthly mean precipitation and accumulated snow, but no effect was found for the relative abundance of white‐footed mice. Positive relationships were also identified between questing I. scapularis abundance with monthly mean precipitation and mammal species richness. Therefore, future studies that assess I. scapularis should incorporate host surveillance data with high‐resolution environmental factors to determine the key drivers impacting the abundance and geographic spread of tick populations and tick‐borne pathogens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".