Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (<i>Rana luteiventris</i>) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on how animals partition their activities and travel among complementary resources, such as breeding or overwintering habitats, is needed for species conservation. In a mountain basin at 2500 m elevation in central Idaho, we studied the habitat use and movement patterns of 736 marked and 87 radio-tagged Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) from 1995 to 1998. The goals of this study were to (i) identify and characterize R. luteiventris breeding, summer foraging, and overwintering habitats, (ii) describe the movement patterns of juvenile, male, and female R. luteiventris among these resources, and (iii) determine migration routes. Juvenile and adult R. luteiventris occupied a variety of widely distributed wetlands from late June to September. On average, 132% of juvenile, 611% of male, and 1651% of female frogs moved from breeding ponds to summer habitats. Migratory males remained within 200 m of the breeding sites, whereas females traveled up to 1030 m to reach summer habitats. From late August through September, frogs migrated to deep (>3 m) lakes to overwinter. Frog migrations occurred quickly and often followed shortest-distance travel routes through dry, open forest even when stream corridors were available nearby. This study exemplifies the need to protect both complementary resources and the corridors connecting these anuran habitats.
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 | 0.001 | 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".