MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969147564 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6834552

Predation and parasitism as determinants of animal personalities

2022· other· en· W6969147564 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEngineering and Material Science Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationForagingParasitismPersonality psychologyHost (biology)PersonalityPhenotypePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Within the same population, proactive (i.e. bolder, more exploratory, active and aggressive) and reactive (i.e. more timid, less exploratory, less active and more passive) individuals could be hypothetically maintained due a trade-off between foraging and anti-predator behaviour, provided that both phenotypes differ in their state (e.g. metabolic rates, body condition or energetic needs). 2. Yet, recent findings indicate that among-individual variation in intrinsic state can explain only a small proportion of variation in behaviour, meaning that other mechanisms, such as the presence of trophically transmitted parasites, might contribute to maintaining inter-individual behavioural differences. Empirical evidence, indeed, suggests strong relationships between certain animal personality traits and parasitic load within host populations. However, the direction of causation between these traits remains unclear: are different behaviours in infected hosts in contrast to uninfected ones the result of manipulation by parasites to increase host predation, or are some personalities inherently more susceptible to infection than others? 3. To better understand the role of parasites in shaping behavioural differences within host populations and examine to what extent parasite manipulation and/or intrinsic differences in parasite susceptibility contribute to maintaining behavioural differences, we used a simulation approach and analyzed the change in the frequencies of proactive and reactive individuals over time under different predation and starvation scenarios, when individual phenotype either affected a host's risk of infection or not. 4. We found that in the absence of parasites, predation pressure strongly affected the expression of host personality, but trade-offs between foraging and anti-predator behaviour alone could not explain the maintenance of inter-individual behavioural differences without temporal variation in predation pressure. By contrast, in the presence of parasites, the two host phenotypes could coexist within populations even when individuals experienced no temporal variations in predation risk, but only when proactive and reactive hosts were equally susceptible to parasitism. 5. Our findings thus indicate that parasites can play an important role in maintaining genetic diversity in their host populations in addition to generating behavioural differences though manipulation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1300.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it