Ectoparasite infection levels differ between fish from upwelling-exposed and sheltered rocky reefs areas in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ubiquitous and abundant within marine ecosystems, parasites play essential ecological roles such as shaping host population dynamics, altering competition between species, and influencing energy flows through communities. Their diversity and population dynamics are demonstrably shaped by both seasonal and geographic variations. These variations have been often explored at broad spatial scale. However, parasite communities can exhibit significant disparities even at small spatial scales, driven by factors such as wave exposure, temperature fluctuations, and benthic habitat composition. We investigated how crustacean parasites of fish – caligids and gnathiids - differed between two distinct habitats, which are separated solely by a few kilometres, at Arraial do Cabo, Brazil. These two habitats are characterised by a sheltered embayment (hereinafter referred to as “inside”) or an exposed upwelling habitat (hereinafter referred to as “outside”). Individual fish from four species were examined in both habitats. We found that the infestation rate of caligids varied among fish species and, gnathiids varied between the two sampling sites. Gnathiids were absent from fish outside, while they were present on fish inside the embayment. This disparity suggests a critical role of local environmental factors in shaping gnathiid distribution. Potential drivers include temperature fluctuations, substrate composition, and wave exposure, which differed markedly between the two sites. Conversely, caligid parasites infected fish in both locations. While environmental factors may also influence caligid abundance, they appear to exhibit greater tolerance compared to gnathiids. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating fine-scale environmental heterogeneity when investigating parasite distribution patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".