Flexible feeding kinematics of a tropical carnivorous anuran tadpole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract L eptodactylus labyrinthicus tadpoles are known predators of anuran eggs and hatchlings, but they are also able to filter‐feed in the water column and scrape food off of firm substrates. We evaluated and compared these alternative feeding behaviors in relation to feeding kinematics and the shape of the mouth with high‐speed digital imaging. We tested the hypotheses that (1) L . labyrinthicus tadpoles use functionally different feeding kinematics when feeding on alternative food sources and (2) that the jaw sheaths of L . labyrinthicus tadpoles deform less during filter‐feeding and substrate grazing compared with more common tadpoles not so specialized for macrophagous carnivory. Our results show that filtering and scraping feeding behaviors differ significantly in both kinematics and shape of the mouth. During filter‐feeding, tadpoles display longer gape cycles and attain a narrower maximum gape earlier in the cycle compared with substrate grazing. Jaw deformation during opening and closing phases of the gape cycle is more pronounced during grazing on firm substrates. This deformation contributes to the achievement of a wider maximum gape during feeding. These differences appear to reflect behavioral adjustments by the tadpoles to maximize food intake. Feeding in tadpoles of L . labyrinthicus is not restrained by their typical carnivorous morphology. On the contrary, L . labyrinthicus tadpoles seem to be opportunistic feeders able to obtain nutrients from a variety of food sources by using different feeding strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".