Demography and reproductive ecology of the Columbia spotted frog (<i>Rana luteiventris</i>) across the Palouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we report on the demography and reproductive ecology of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris Thompson, 1913) breeding in ponds across the Palouse Bioregion of Washington and Idaho. Spotted frogs are unusual, if not unique, among temperate ranids in that males establish the oviposition site before females become active. Females laid at one or two communal sites in shallow water. Our breeding populations were small, never exceeding 50 adults counted, and most displayed male-biased sex ratios. We estimated effective population sizes (Ne) as ranges determined by extremes in male breeding success; these varied between 3.2 and 37.8. Even the latter falls below the minimum required for long-term population viability. Small population size may make spotted frogs vulnerable to genetic problems and environmental insults. Communal oviposition certainly renders a population's reproductive effort vulnerable to variation in hydroperiod, which we observed during the dry spring of 2004. In the absence of information on the degree of "connectedness" among our ponds as subunits of more resilient metapopulations, we suggest that small population size and communal oviposition likely render R. luteiventris vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbance. Furthermore, the status of R. luteiventris on the Palouse may be less secure than assumed currently.
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".