Flexible feeding kinematics of a tropical carnivorous anuran tadpole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leptodactylus 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".