Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21390490›Full record

ArticleOecologia2011

Geographical variation in host use of a blood-feeding ectoparasitic fly: implications for population invasiveness.

Panu Välimäki, Arja Kaitala, Knut Madslien, Laura Härkönen, Gergely Várkonyi, Jari Heikkilä, Mervi Jaakola, Hannu Ylönen, Raine Kortet, Bjørnar Ytrehus

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Panu VälimäkiDepartment of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. panu.valimaki@oulu.fi
Arja Kaitala
Knut Madslien
Laura Härkönen
Gergely Várkonyi
Jari Heikkilä
Mervi Jaakola
Hannu Ylönen
Raine Kortet
Bjørnar Ytrehus
University of Oulu · FIFinnish Environment Institute · FINorwegian Veterinary Institute · NOUniversity of Eastern Finland · FIOulu University of Applied Sciences · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive generalist ectoparasites provide a tool to study factors affecting expansion rates. An increase in the number of host species may facilitate geographic range expansion by increasing the number of suitable habitats and by affecting local extinction and colonization rates. A geographic perspective on parasite host specificity and its implications on range expansion are, however, insufficiently understood. We conducted a field study to explore if divergent host specificity could explain the observed variation in expansion rates between Fennoscandian populations of the deer ked (Lipoptena cervi), which is a blood-feeding ectoparasitic fly of cervids. We found that the rapidly expanding eastern population in Finland appears to specialize on moose, whereas the slowly expanding western population in Norway breeds successfully on both moose and roe deer. The eastern population was also found to utilize the wild forest reindeer as an auxiliary host, but this species is apparently of low value for L. cervi in terms of adult maintenance, reproductive output and offspring quality. Abundant numbers of roe deer and white-tailed deer were observed to be apparently uninfected in Finland, suggesting that host use is not a plastic response to host availability, but rather a consequence of population-level evolutionary changes. Locally compatible hosts were found to be the ones sharing a long history with the deer ked in the area. Cervids that sustained adult deer keds also allowed successful reproduction. Thus, host use is probably determined by the ability of the adult to exploit particular host species. We conclude that a wide host range alone does not account for the high expansion rate or wide geographic distribution of the deer ked, although loose ecological requirements would increase habitat availability.

Indexed as

Host SpecificityAnimalsDeerDipteraEctoparasitic InfestationsFinlandNorwayReproduction

Identifiers

PMID21390490
OpenAlexW1993671056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.