Mouth-attaching copepod <i>Salmincola markewitschi</i> reduces the body condition and growth of juvenile salmonids, <i>Salvelinus leucomaenis</i>, by decreasing host feeding activity: evidence from parasite removal experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ectoparasitic copepods in the genus Salmincola Wilson, 1915 are considered harmful to host salmonids, yet experimental studies on the mechanism by which these copepods affect hosts are critically limited. We evaluated the effects of the mouth-attaching Salmincola markewitschi Shedko & Shedko, 2002 on juvenile white-spotted charr Salvelinus leucomaenis (Pallas, 1814). We used a parasite removal experiment where all individuals were artificially infected, and then parasites were removed in one group (i.e., treatment), while the copepods were left in another group (i.e., control). We hypothesized that the copepods reduce host feeding, thereby reducing host body condition and growth. The alternative hypothesis is that parasites do not change host feeding, or even increase because of the compensation for the negative effect. In this case, host condition and growth would not be reduced. The control group had lower food consumption, body condition, and growth compared to the treatment. Thus, S. markewitschi negatively affected hosts by reducing host feeding, and no behavioral compensation was observed. It remains unknown, however, whether reduced feeding was due to impaired swallowing or physiological stresses caused by infections. Further experiments on gill- and body surface-attaching Salmincola species could provide deeper insights into how these parasites influence host health.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".