Quantifying Ecological Life Support: The Biological Efficacy of Alternative Supplementation Strategies for Imperiled Amphibian Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Global biodiversity loss has prompted diverse efforts to stem or reverse declines for many species. Such efforts are often implemented before the efficacy of alternative management actions is quantified. Here, we use matrix models to compare the effectiveness of two supplementation strategies, head‐starting early life stages and captive breeding for reintroduction, at reducing extinction risk of declining amphibians. We use the imperiled Oregon spotted frog ( Rana pretiosa ) as a case study and find that when supplementation occurs after metamorphosis, captive breeding is more effective at reducing extinction risk than head‐starting, but the difference declines with increasing supplementation effort. We also find that captive breeding with release as larvae yields similar reductions in extinction risk, and is two orders of magnitude more effective at reducing extinction probabilities than head‐starting the same stage. Our results highlight that even basic demographic data can be leveraged to assess tradeoffs among alternative supplementation 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".