Data from: Host traits and competitive ability jointly structure disease dynamics and community assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Parasitism and competition are both ubiquitous interactions in ecological communities. The ability of host species to interact directly via competition and indirectly through shared parasites suggests that host traits related to competition and parasitism are likely important in structuring communities and disease dynamics. Specifically, those host traits affecting competition and those mediating parasitism are often correlated either because of trade-offs (in resource acquisition or resource allocation) or condition-dependence; yet the consequences of these trait relationships for community and epidemiological dynamics are poorly understood. 2. We conducted a literature review of parasite-related host traits – competitive ability relationships. We found that transmission – competitive ability relationships were most often reported, and that superior competitors exhibited elevated transmission relative to their less-competitive counterparts in nearly 80% of the cases. We also found a significant number of virulence – competitive ability and parasite shedding – competitive ability relationships. 3. We investigated these links by altering the relationship between host competitive ability and three parasite-related traits (transmission, virulence, and parasite shedding rates) in a simple model, incorporating competitive asymmetries in a multi-host community. 4. We show that these relationships can lead to a range of different communities. For example, depending on the strength and direction of these distinct trait relationships, we observed communities with anywhere from high parasite prevalence to complete parasite extinction, and either one, two, or the maximum of three host species coexisting. 5. Our results suggest that parasite – competitive ability relationships may be common in nature, that further integration of these relationships can produce novel and unexpected community and disease dynamics, and that generalizations may allow for the prediction of how parasitism and competition jointly structure disease and diversity in natural communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.250 | 0.094 |
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".