Wood frog adaptations to overwintering in Alaska: New limits to freezing tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the ecological physiology and behavior of free-living wood frogs [Lithobates (Rana) sylvaticus] overwintering in Interior Alaska by tracking animals into natural hibernacula, recording microclimate, and determining frog survival in spring. We measured cryoprotectant (glucose) concentrations and identified the presence of antifreeze glycolipids in tissues from subsamples of naturally freezing frogs. We also recorded the behavior of wood frogs preparing to freeze in artificial hibernacula, and tissue glucose concentrations in captive wood frogs frozen in the laboratory to -2.5°C. Wood frogs in natural hibernacula remained frozen for 193 ± 11 consecutive days and experienced average (October-May) temperatures of -6.3°C and average minimum temperatures of -14.6 ± 2.8°C (range -8.9 to -18.1°C) with 100% survival (N=18). Mean glucose concentrations were 13-fold higher in muscle, 10-fold higher in heart and 3.3-fold higher in liver in naturally freezing compared with laboratory frozen frogs. Antifreeze glycolipid was present in extracts from muscle and internal organs, but not skin, of frozen frogs. Wood frogs in Interior Alaska survive freezing to extreme limits and durations compared with those described in animals collected in southern Canada or the Midwestern United States. We hypothesize that this enhancement of freeze tolerance in Alaskan wood frogs is due to higher cryoprotectant levels that are produced by repeated freezing and thawing cycles experienced under natural conditions during early autumn.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".