Amphibian susceptibility to parasitism in relation to environmental contaminant exposure: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphibians are declining globally, which may have consequences for structure and function of ecosystems. In the natural environment, amphibians are often challenged with multiple threats simultaneously. Two challenges that amphibian species currently face include exposure to environmental contaminants (ECs), and exposure to parasites. The relationship between EC exposure and amphibian susceptibility to parasites has been investigated for multiple amphibian species, parasite types, and ECs. However, the overall effect of EC exposure on amphibian susceptibility to parasites remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the overall effect of EC exposure on amphibian susceptibility to parasitism and to investigate whether moderating factors influenced the effect of EC exposure on amphibian susceptibility to parasitism. We did not detect an overall effect of EC exposure on amphibian susceptibility to parasitism. The effect of ECs on amphibian parasite levels differed depending on EC class, parasite type, the relative order the host was exposed to ECs and parasites, the host's developmental stage when exposed to parasites, and which organism was exposed to ECs. Amphibian parasite levels increased as the total experiment duration increased. The effect of ECs on parasite-associated amphibian mortality differed depending on EC class, with fungicides increasing parasite-associated amphibian mortality relative to the other EC classes tested. We identified two main considerations for future research: to broaden the array of ECs and parasites tested, and to investigate the ontogeny of EC exposure on amphibian susceptibility to parasites. We also implore researchers to publish their raw data to facilitate data collection and analysis for future meta-analyses.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".