Life-history variation among populations of Canadian Toads in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of appropriate conservation plans relies on life-history information and how life-history traits vary across populations of a species. Such data are lacking for many amphibians, including the Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys Cope, 1886). Here we use skeletochronology to estimate size at age, growth rates, age at maturity, and longevity of toads from nine populations along a latitudinal gradient in Alberta, Canada. Size of individual toads within each year class was highly variable, but age and size (measured as snout-to-urostyle length) were significantly related for almost all populations. The largest individuals were found in the southern-most population, while the smallest toads were found in three populations from the middle of the latitudinal range studied. Growth rates were highest in the southern-most population and lowest at the three populations with relatively small individuals. Maximum age was from 7 to 12 years for the populations sampled. The oldest individuals were found in populations in the middle of the latitudinal range sampled; toads in these populations were smaller than those in all other populations. Age at maturity was 1 year old for males and 2 years old for females in most populations. This study shows that some life-history traits exhibit significant variation between Canadian Toad populations, suggesting that effective conservation of this species will need to include population or area-specific management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".