Data from: Effects of host colony size and hygiene behaviors on social spider kleptoparasite loads along an elevation gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1.Group living animals are likely to attract more parasites than solitary ones. Parasite loads, however, should also depend on environmental conditions and on host characteristics and behaviors. Previous work has found that social spider colonies harbor communities of kleptoparasitic spiders thats forego building their own web and, instead, steal prey from their social host. 2.We examined parasite loads and host hygiene behaviors in colonies of social and subsocial spiders in the genus Anelosimus along an elevation gradient in eastern Ecuador. 3.We found that parasite loads declined dramatically with increasing elevation. Host hygiene behaviors, such as debris removal, web repair, and interactions with the parasites, also declined with elevation. Within elevations, species with more frequent hygiene behaviors appeared more successful at keeping parasites at bay. Contrary to our predictions, parasite density declined with host nest and colony size. 4.The decline in parasite loads at higher elevations likely reflects a lower rate of energy exchange between colonies and their environments, where colder temperatures mean fewer and smaller prey for colonies to process. The decline in parasite density with host colony size may reflect a decline in the number of accessible prey in larger host colonies, as larger colonies should capture fewer but larger insects due to scaling properties of their three dimensional webs. 5.Social immunity, whereby a social host uses social behaviour to fight against parasites, has been studied in eusocial and non‐eusocial insects. This study opens up social spiders as a novel system in which to study how host characteristics interact with environmental factors to affect parasite loads. It also introduces the concept of group‐level immunity to social spiders and suggests a role for colony‐level metabolism in determining ecological patterns in parasitism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".