Reclaimed wetlands support rich trematode and host diversity: findings from a four-year survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snail hosts play a central role in structuring trematode communities. To test how snail hosts shape parasite diversity in central Alberta, we built upon a previous snail-trematode survey conducted at six lakes in central Alberta from 2013 to 2015 that uncovered 79 trematode species. However, analyses suggested that additional species remained to be uncovered. To build on this baseline, we conducted further snail-trematode collections from 2019 to 2022 at eight reclaimed wetland sites in various stages of reclamation, along with one established lake in Alberta. Across the nine sites, we collected 22,397 snails, of which 1981 were infected with digenetic trematodes. We also documented broader biodiversity at these sites using traditional survey techniques. Through DNA barcoding, we identified 74 trematode species infecting five snail species. Among these were 23 trematode species not previously reported in central Alberta and nine provisionally-named lineages with no matches to species in publicly available databases. In addition, we observed several previously unreported snail-trematode interactions. While trematode richness did not vary significantly with the wetland reclamation stage, host identity did influence richness: Physa gyrina hosted significantly more trematode species than Planorbella trivolvis. When combined with data from the earlier survey, sample completeness analyses indicate that we captured 100 % of the dominant species and 99 % of the typical species, but only 63 % of the overall species diversity in central Alberta. These findings underscore that trematode diversity in central Alberta remains incompletely characterized and highlight the continued value of long-term and host-inclusive sampling efforts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".