Evaluating a predator–prey interaction in the field: the interaction between beetle larvae (predator) and tadpoles (prey)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The larval amphibian community of temporary pond ecosystems has served as a model for studies in community ecology, with a majority of this work being conducted in mesocosms. Recent research has suggested that mesocosms may overestimate ecological effects; therefore, experimental studies conducted under field conditions are required to gauge the results of mesocosm studies. To assess a species interaction under more natural conditions, we conducted a series of field experiments examining the predator–prey interaction between beetle larvae ( Dytiscus sp.; predator) and larval wood frogs Rana sylvatica (prey) in central Pennsylvania, USA. Quantitative sampling of woodland ponds indicated that beetle larvae of the genus Dytiscus were the most common predator of tadpoles. In a field enclosure experiment, dytiscids were effective predators of tadpoles in the pond environment. Moreover, tadpoles avoided areas in a pond containing caged dytiscids, demonstrating that tadpoles recognize the chemical stimuli of predators in complex environments. The results of this study are consistent with data from prior laboratory and mesocosm studies and suggest that these venues can produce reliable interpretations of predator–prey dynamics in this community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".