Do female frogs exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advertisement calls of male anurans (frogs and toads) are loud and conspicuous signals, and the sound generated by breeding aggregations of males propagates over long distances. As a by-product of communication within an aggregation, the sounds of a frog chorus constitute a form of inadvertent social information that provides potential long-distance cues about the location and timing of breeding. We investigated whether female American toads ( Bufo americanus Holbrook, 1836) and Cope’s gray treefrogs ( Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880) use the sounds of a chorus to locate breeding aggregations in the absence of other sensory cues. Females of both species approached speakers broadcasting recordings of a chorus made from distances of 0, 20, and 40 m, but not from distances of 80 and 160 m. Female toads also exhibited phonotaxis to a completely artificial chorus sound, but female gray treefrogs did not. We found little evidence to suggest that female American toads and Cope’s gray treefrogs differed substantially in their responses to natural chorus sounds despite potential differences in the predictability and duration of breeding seasons in these two species. Our results suggest that the inadvertent social information of a chorus could be used over short distances to locate breeding aggregations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".