The significance of hydroperiod and stand maturity for pool-breeding amphibians in forested landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The loss of small seasonal wetlands and adjacent forested habitat is a major threat to pool-breeding amphibians in North America. Identifying environmental correlates of breeding effort (and success) in remaining intact landscapes is a critical first step in conservation planning. Little is known about how pool-breeding amphibian populations respond to fine-scale variations in hydroperiod or neighboring forest structure and composition. We studied these associations for wood frogs ( Rana sylvatica LeConte, 1825) and spotted salamanders ( Ambystoma maculatum (Shaw, 1802)) in a forested New England landscape (southern Maine, USA). We conducted egg mass counts across two seasons at 87 strictly seasonal pools. The influence of hydroperiod and landscape (150 and 500 m scales) habitat characteristics on breeding effort were investigated. Pools with longer hydroperiods (≥18 weeks post breeding) that were relatively isolated from other breeding wetlands (<13 neighboring pools within 150 m and <19 within 500 m) supported larger breeding populations of both wood frogs and spotted salamanders. Salamander breeding populations were largest in relatively mature forests. Naturalized, anthropogenic pools supported comparable levels of breeding effort with that of natural pools. Conservation planning for wood frogs and spotted salamanders should incorporate pools at the longer end of the seasonal hydroperiod gradient.
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) | 0.000 | 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".