Factors affecting escape behavior of Iberian green frogs (<i>Rana perezi</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical models and empirical evidence suggest that prey should not flee immediately upon detecting an approaching predator, but instead should adjust their escape response to minimize the costs of flight. Similarly, after deciding to escape, animals should tend to adjust the magnitude and characteristics of their escape response according to the perceived level of predation risk. Although these hypotheses have been tested in some prey types, it remains for their applicability to a wider range of taxa to be ascertained and for a larger variety of microhabitat and environmental conditions to be considered. We simulated predator approaches to Iberian green frogs (Rana perezi Seoane, 1885) in the field. Frogs were approached while they were foraging alone at the edge of water, and they escaped by jumping into the water. Results showed that escape decisions of frogs are influenced by microhabitat variables and body size. Both the approach distance allowed to the predator and the distance jumped by the frogs in response to the approach were positively correlated with the initial distance of the frog from the water's edge; they were also dependent on vegetation cover at the edge of and in the water. Small frogs appeared to rely on crypsis more than large frogs and allowed shorter predator approach distances. They also remained still on the water surface after jumping more often than large frogs. We conclude that such flexibility in the escape response may allow frogs to reduce predation risk without incurring excessive costs.
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) | 0.006 | 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".