The metabolic cost of amplexus in the grey tree frog (<i>Hyla versicolor</i>): assessing the energetics of male mating success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic cost of amplexus was calculated for 37 pairs of grey tree frogs, Hyla versicolor, by measuring the rate of O 2 consumption of each amplexed pair and the combined resting rates of O 2 consumption of the two individuals of each pair, and calculating the difference. The mean cost of amplexus was 1.20 mL O 2 ·h 1 for each pair. The cost of amplexus was correlated with the mass of the males but not the mass of the females, and amplexus with artificial males did not have a significant effect on female metabolic rate. Therefore, the cost of amplexus appears to be incurred entirely by the male. Reproductively successful males spend less time calling per evening than reproductively unsuccessful males, leaving the chorus early to enter into amplexus. The mass-specific cost of amplexus (0.158 mL O 2 ·g 1 ·h 1 ) is approximately 1/10 the mass-specific cost of call production (1.620 mL O 2 ·g 1 ·h 1 ), and net energy consumption per evening is less for reproductively successful male H. versicolor than it is for reproductively unsuccessful males. The probability of future reproductive success is enhanced if reproductive success is energetically less expensive than reproductive failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".