Threatened tadpoles of Bokermannohyla alvarengai (Anura: Hylidae) choose backgrounds that enhance crypsis potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crypsis results from a complex interaction among prey coloration, background matching, behaviour and predator visual perception. Tadpoles are known to have varied adaptations to escape predation, but the use of crypsis is little explored, although it is likely for certain species. We investigated potential escape mechanisms related to active escape (fleeing) and crypsis improvement in Bokermannohyla alvarengai tadpoles, proposing a new method to measure cryptic potential. We studied the range of distances covered by threatened and fleeing tadpoles and the proportion of tadpoles that seek shelter or remain exposed after fleeing. We hypothesized that tadpoles that remain exposed may use alternative strategies to avoid detection, such as reaching deeper microhabitats or positioning themselves on substrates that confer greater crypsis than the ones they were on before disturbance. A significantly greater proportion of tadpoles remained exposed after disturbance and positioned themselves on backgrounds that offered greater cryptic potential, but did not differ in depth. Tadpoles may respond to a trade-off between sheltering and being cryptic. On the one hand, they may remain close to retreat sites or they may escape to microhabitats that provide appropriate background matching as a means to achieve crypsis. On the other hand, the absence of matching backgrounds in the tadpoles' vicinities may induce them to seek shelter.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".