Effects of ophidiomycosis on movement, survival, and reproduction of eastern foxsnakes (Pantherophis vulpinus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ophidiomycosis (snake fungal disease) is caused by the fungal pathogen Ophidiomyces ophidiicola, which causes dermal lesions, occasional systemic infections, and in some cases, mortality. To better understand potential conservation implications of ophidiomycosis (i.e., population-level effects), we investigated its impacts on individual fitness in a population of endangered eastern foxsnakes (Pantherophis vulpinus). We tracked 38 foxsnakes over 6 years and quantified body condition, movement patterns, oviposition rates, and survival. Body condition, distance travelled, and oviposition rates were similar between snakes with and without ophidiomycosis. Interestingly, snakes that tested positive for the pathogen travelled farther, suggesting that movement through a greater diversity of habitats increases risk of exposure. Ophidiomycosis did not negatively affect survival, and most apparently infected snakes persisted in a manner comparable to snakes without ophidiomycosis. Only one mortality was directly attributed to ophidiomycosis, although infected snakes were overrepresented in a sample of snakes killed by predators. Overall, our results suggest that ophidiomycosis may have sublethal effects on eastern foxsnakes, but do not suggest direct effects on survival, ovipositioning, or viability of the study population.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".