Patterns of ectoparasitism in North American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus): Sex-biases, seasonality, age, and effects on male body condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within many species, males are often more heavily parasitised than females. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, including immunocompetence handicaps, sexual size dimorphism and behavioural differences. Here we set out to test the latter two hypotheses and make inferences about the former by assessing patterns of ectoparasitism across various life-history stages in a population of North American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). We also conducted an ectoparasite removal experiment to investigate the effects of ectoparasites on male body condition. We found that males were more intensely parasitized than females, but only during the mating period. There was no difference in ectoparasite intensity between male and female juveniles at birth or at emergence, suggesting that ectoparasites do not exploit male red squirrels for longer-range natal dispersal. Male red squirrels in our population were slightly heavier than females, however we did not find any evidence that this dimorphism drives male-biased ectoparasitism. Finally, we could not detect an effect of ectoparasite removal on male body mass. Our results lend support to the hypothesis that ectoparasites exploit their male hosts for transmission and that male red squirrels are important for the transmission dynamics of ectoparasites in this population; however, the mechanisms (i.e., immunocompetence, testosterone) are not known.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".