MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392719509 · doi:10.5751/ace-02592-190108

Influence of human activity on gut microbiota and immune responses of Darwin’s finches in the Galápagos Islands

2024· article· en· W4392719509 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jada N. Bygrave, Ashley Love, Maxine Zylberberg, Alyssa Addesso, Sarah A. Knutie

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Conservation and Ecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of ConnecticutAmerican Ornithologists' UnionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEcologyBiologyGut floraZoologyGeographyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urbanization can influence many environmental factors that can affect the condition, immunity, and gut microbiota of birds. Over the past several decades, the Galápagos Islands of Ecuador have experienced increasing human activity, which has led to recent changes in the morphology, gut microbiota, and immunity of Darwin’s finches. However, these traits have not been characterized before the exponential growth of human population size and tourist visitation rates, i.e., before 2009. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of land use on the fecal microbiota, immune response, and body measurements of Darwin’s finches in 2008, at a time of rapidly increasing human activity on the islands. Specifically, we compared fecal microbiota (bacterial diversity, community structure and membership, and relative abundance of bacterial taxa), proxies of immunity (lysozyme activity and haptoglobin, complement antibody, and natural antibody levels), and body measurements (body mass and condition, tarsus length) across undeveloped, agricultural, and urban areas for medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis) and small ground finches (G. fuliginosa). Lysozyme activity was lower and observed bacterial species richness was higher in urban areas compared to non-urban areas across both finch species. In medium ground finches, four genera (Methylobacterium-Methylorubrum, Escherichia-Shigella, Brucella, and Citrobacter spp.) were higher in urban areas compared to undeveloped areas. In small ground finches, Paucibacter, Achromobacter, Delftia, Stenotrophomonas, and Brucella spp. had higher relative abundances in undeveloped and agricultural areas whereas the genus Cutibacterium was more abundant in finches from urban and agricultural areas than in finches from undeveloped areas. Medium ground finches were smaller in undeveloped areas compared to the other two areas, but body mass of small ground finches did not differ across areas. Our results suggest that human activity can have an impact on immune measures and gut microbiota of Darwin’s finches.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian Conservation and EcologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207