MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070222670 · doi:10.1139/z09-026

Breeding-site selection by the poison frog Ranitomeya biolat in Amazonian bamboo forests: an experimental approach

2009· article· en· W2070222670 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rudolf von May, Margarita Medina-Müller, Maureen A. Donnelly, Kyle Summers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPredationTadpole (physics)BambooEcologyHabitatContext (archaeology)GuildSelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat selection in amphibians has typically been investigated using species that breed in medium-sized to large bodies of water. So far, few studies have focused on tropical, phytotelm-breeding species. We examined habitat selection in the context of reproductive resource use by Ranitomeya biolat (Morales, 1992), a poison frog that uses bamboo internodes as breeding sites. We conducted field observations and experiments using bamboo and PVC sections to test the effect of physical and biotic factors on tadpole deposition. Our field observations indicated that water volume, as well as internode length, height, and angle, may be important for tadpole deposition. We predicted that adult R. biolat would deposit tadpoles in pools that are close to the ground, pools with high water volume, pools contained in long structures, and pools without conspecific tadpoles or heterospecific predators. Our experiments demonstrated that water volume and the length of the structure containing the pool affect the pattern of tadpole deposition. Tadpoles were also deposited more frequently in experimental pools containing no other tadpoles or no predators. Our results support the prediction that phytotelm-breeding species, to maximize their reproductive success, should deposit their tadpoles in pools with water volumes that maximize nutrient content and that present no competitors or predators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207