Ghosts of parasites past influence current non-consumptive effects in Drosophila nigrospiracula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasites can indirectly impact hosts through non-consumptive effects (NCEs) via changes in behaviour, morphology, and/or physiology. These responses can be understood in terms of the ecology of fear (ectoparasites) or the ecology of disgust (endoparasites) framework. We tested the hypothesis that NCEs of parasite exposure (e.g., parasite avoidance and defense) trade off with other important behaviours such as feeding and resting. We predicted that when exposed to parasites (without infection), hosts will increase their defensive behaviors at the expense of feeding. We also posited that history of exposure (without infection), or previous infection would impact the expression of these NCEs. The study system involves a cactophilic fruit fly (Drosophila nigrospiracula) and a naturally occurring parasitic mite (Macrocheles subbadius). First, we assessed how prior mite exposure affected fly behaviour in response to current parasite exposure. Mite presence resulted in increased grooming and movement, but exposure history did not affect these behaviours. However, the interaction between previous and current exposure influenced host feeding and resting behaviours. We found that previously exposed flies increased feeding and decreased resting upon a secondary mite exposure. In a second experiment, we tested the role of infection history on current parasite exposure. Compared with naïve flies, previously infected flies were expected to increase defensive behaviours upon secondary exposure. Flies increased defensive and ambulatory behaviour in the presence of mites, and consequently less time was spent resting but feeding was unaffected. None of the behaviours measured were affected by previous infection status. In general, current parasite exposure resulted in NCEs. Moreover, our results showed that previous exposure (without infection) to parasites may have an even stronger effect upon secondary exposure than infection history. Our study highlights the importance of the ecology of fear and the role that exposure and infection history plays in generating NCEs of parasitism.
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".