MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027470570 · doi:10.1139/z01-045

Predation-induced effects on hatchling morphology in the common frog (<i>Rana temporaria</i>)

2001· article· en· W2027470570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anssi Laurila, Pierre‐André Crochet, Juha Merilä

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchlingBiologyPredationHatchingAmphibianLarvaPredatorZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As mortality due to predation is often high at early independent life stages in many animals, it can be expected that predation-induced modifications of early life history and morphology will be common when predation risk varies spatially or temporally. However, studies of such effects are still rare. Predation-induced changes in life history and morphology have often been described in amphibian larvae, but the focus has been on older larvae and little is known about responses of hatchlings or very young larvae. We examined whether predator presence influenced timing of hatching and hatchling morphology in the common frog, Rana temporaria. In a paired design, eggs from 10 clutches were allowed to develop from fertilization to hatching, with or without the nonlethal presence of a larva of the large diving beetle Dytiscus marginalis. We found no evidence that predator presence affected timing of hatching. However, hatchlings raised in the presence of the predator had relatively shorter bodies and deeper tail fins than their full-sibs raised in the absence of the predator, indicating that predation induces morphological responses in R. temporaria hatchlings. This is one of the very few studies showing that predators, or chemical cues released during a predation event, can induce a plastic morphological changes in vertebrates at very early life stages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207