Behavioral response of migrating wood frogs to experimental timber harvest surrounding wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral responses to ecological disturbances such as timber harvest, fire, or drought provide insight into wildlife habitat requirements. To determine the behavioral response of adult wood frogs ( Lithobates sylvatica (LeConte, 1825)) to timber harvest in oak–hickory forest, we conducted experimental timber harvest surrounding replicate breeding sites, monitored freely moving frogs using radiotelemetry, and tested the repeatability of behavioral responses with two experimental displacements. We found no evidence that wood frogs use recent oak–hickory clearcuts as habitat. Timber harvest was not a complete barrier to movement, as frogs surviving increased predation and desiccation risks reached drainages used as nonbreeding habitat. Frogs did not alter the direction of travel and traversed similar distances (i.e., total distance and net distance from breeding site) before and after timber harvest. However, rate of travel (i.e., maximum distance traversed in 1 day) increased following timber harvest and frogs displaced to the center of clearcuts exited the timber harvest array in one rainy night. Notably, wood frogs following displacement exhibited site fidelity to nonbreeding habitat. We suggest that deleterious effects of timber harvest on amphibians may be minimized through the use of small stand sizes placed in locations that do not separate breeding and nonbreeding habitat.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".