The actively foraging desert lizard<i>Pedioplanis husabensis</i>(Husab Sand Lizard) behaviorally optimizes its energetic economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Husab Sand Lizard (Pedioplanis husabensis Berger-Dell’Mour and Mayer, 1989) is a recently described lacertid lizard endemic to a small region in the central Namib Desert. Although this species is of conservation concern, very little is known about how this lizard functions in its environment. We used the doubly labeled water method to measure the field energetics in this lizard species and we report on its foraging behavior. Pedioplanis husabensis had summer field metabolic rates (330 ± 140 J·d −1 ) that were similar to those of other similarly sized sit-and-wait foraging lizards (360 J·d −1 ), but only 43% that of an active foraging lizard of the same mass (770 J·d −1 ), despite using a movement-intensive, active foraging strategy. Additionally, the mean water influx rate (0.06 ± 0.03 mL·d −1 ) was 67% that of a desert reptile of the same size (0.09 mL·d −1 ). Active body temperatures were significantly lower in summer (34.3 ± 1.7 °C) than they were in autumn (36.8 ± 1.6 °C), and daily activity of lizards increased from 2.6 ± 0.9 h·d −1 in summer to 4.3 ± 1.9 h·d −1 in autumn. Relative to other species of actively foraging desert lizards, P. husabensis has lower energy requirements.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".