Developmental windows and origins of the chemical cues mediating hatching responses to injured conspecific eggs in the common frog (Rana temporaria)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In amphibians, embryonic exposure to chemical cues resulting from a predation event on conspecific eggs can influence hatching traits. However, there is no information on the precise origin of the active substances, or on the critical period of embryonic development mediating such a process. In this context, common frog ( Rana temporaria L., 1758) eggs were exposed at Gosner stage 2, 16, or 20 to chemical cues simulating predation on whole eggs, jelly envelopes, or embryos. Embryonic movement rate, hatching time, and developmental stage at hatching appeared unaffected by the nature of the treatment. In contrast, the embryonic treatments strongly affected the morphology of hatchlings, with the groups exposed to crushed whole eggs and jelly envelopes showing longer (exposures at stages 16 and 20) and deeper (exposure at stage 20) tails than their unexposed counterparts. In addition, exposure at stage 20 to crushed embryos also produced hatchlings with longer tails than the controls. Thus, morphological plasticity at hatching can result from a relatively short period of embryonic exposure to conspecific chemical cues. This critical period occurs at the completion of neurulation (stage 16), with the most marked effects resulting from an exposure at the last stage of embryonic development (stage 20).
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".