The distribution of the Rocky Mountain tailed frog ( <i>Ascaphus montanus</i> ) in relation to the fluvial system: implications for management and conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mating, egg‐laying, and larval development of tailed frogs occur in dynamic mountain streams. During the lengthy (up to 5 years) aquatic residency these species are vulnerable to channel disturbances that can be exacerbated by land uses. Researchers have highlighted specific tailed frog habitat associations but never in the context of fluvial system processes. Based on an extensive regional study with a watershed‐wide sampling strategy, we demonstrate that the Rocky Mountain tailed frog ( Ascaphus montanus ) is limited to contributing basins of roughly 0.3–100 km 2 in size, with peak numbers in basins up to 35 km 2 . We conclude that the primary determinant of tailed frog distribution patterns in a watershed is basin area, a proximate variable for channel process domain and regional stream discharge: tailed frogs are adapted to cascade and step‐pool channel morphologies that characterize these small basins, presumably because they afford more bedform stability and pore‐space refugia than do smaller, colluvial headwaters, or larger, floodplain‐forming plane bed and pool‐riffle bedforms of mainstem rivers. Secondarily, climate and physiography interact to influence occurrence and abundance at the watershed level by controlling such variables as runoff, water temperature, and sedimentation regime. This point has important management implications because it forces us to recognize that in complex ecosystems, wildlife habitat associations are contingent on site‐specific interactions amongst fluvial system control variables: significance levels of any one variable to tailed frog distribution will not necessarily be consistent among basins. The study clearly shows that case studies can produce conflicting results when they lack a process‐based understanding of ecological response.
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 | 0.001 | 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".