Effects of predation risk on parasite–host interactions and wildlife diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landscapes of fear can determine the dynamics of entire ecosystems. In response to perceived predation risk, prey can show physiological, behavioral, or morphological trait changes to avoid predation. This in turn can indirectly affect other species by modifying species interactions (e.g., altered feeding), with knock-on effects, such as trophic cascades, on the wider ecosystem. While such indirect effects stemming from the fear of predation have received extensive attention for herbivore-plant and predator-prey interactions, much less is known about how they alter parasite-host interactions and wildlife diseases. In this synthesis, we present a conceptual framework for how predation risk-as perceived by organisms that serve as hosts-can affect parasite-host interactions, with implications for infectious disease dynamics. By basing our approach on recent conceptual advances with respect to predation risk effects, we aim to expand this general framework to include parasite-host interactions and diseases. We further identify pathways through which parasite-host interactions can be affected, for example, through altered parasite avoidance behavior or tolerance of hosts to infections, and discuss the wider relevance of predation risk for parasite and host populations, including heuristic projections to population-level dynamics. Finally, we highlight the current unknowns, specifically the quantitative links from individual-level processes to population dynamics and community structure, and emphasize approaches to address these knowledge gaps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".