MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predation Risk Avoidance by Terrestrial Amphibians: The Role of Prey Experience and Vulnerability to Native and Exotic Predators

2004· article· en· W2101463159 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis L. Murray, James D. Roth, Aaron J. Wirsing

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationBullfrogBiologyPredatorAmphibianEcologyJuvenileZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We studied avoidance, by four amphibian prey species (Rana luteiventris, Ambystoma macrodactylum, Pseudacris regilla, Tarichia granulosa), of chemical cues associated with native garter snake (Thamnophis elegans) or exotic bullfrog (R. catesbeiana) predators. We predicted that avoidance of native predators would be most pronounced, and that prey species would differ in the intensity of their avoidance based on relative levels of vulnerability to predators in the wild. Adult R. luteiventris (presumably high vulnerability to predation) showed significant avoidance of chemical cues from both predators, A. macrodactylum (intermediate vulnerability to predation) avoided T. elegans only, while P. regilla (intermediate vulnerability to predation) and T. granulosa (low vulnerability to predation) showed no avoidance of either predator. We assessed if predator avoidance was innate and/or learned by testing responses of prey having disparate levels of prior exposure to predators. Wild‐caught (presumably predator‐exposed) post‐metamorphic juvenile R. luteiventris and P. regilla avoided T. elegans cues, while laboratory‐reared (predator‐naive) conspecifics did not; prior exposure to R. catesbeiana was not related to behavioural avoidance among adult or post‐metamorphic juvenile wild‐reared A. macrodactylum and P. regilla. These results imply that (i) some but not all species of amphibian prey avoid perceived risk from garter snake and bullfrog predators, (ii) the magnitude of this response probably differs according to prey vulnerability to predation in the wild, and (iii) avoidance tends to be largely learned rather than innate. Yet, the limited prevalence and intensity of amphibian responses to predation risk observed herein may be indicative of either a relatively weak predator–prey relationship and/or the limited importance of predator chemical cues in this particular system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207