CHANGES IN FROG AND TOAD POPULATIONS OVER 30 YEARS IN NEW YORK STATE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of historical data against which to measure population trends greatly hampers understanding the status of amphibians. In 2001–2002 we resurveyed a hitherto unexamined baseline of monitoring data established in 1973–1980 at some 300 sites in western, central, and northern New York State, USA, and contrasted population transitions with environmental conditions to identify correlates of population change in American toads ( Bufo americanus ), northern spring peepers ( Pseudacris crucifer ), western chorus frogs ( Pseudacris triseriata ), leopard frogs ( Rana pipiens ), and wood frogs ( Rana sylvatica ). At the regional level, loss of habitats along roadsides has been substantial (minimally 7– 12% of sites), yet within remaining wetlands, populations of most anurans have not declined. At the local level, population disappearance was associated with elevated levels of acid deposition (in American toad, spring peeper, western chorus frog, and leopard frog), urban development (American toad and spring peeper), increased forest cover (western chorus frog), and high‐intensity agriculture (spring peeper); whereas population persistence was associated with increased deciduous forest cover (American toad, spring peeper, and wood frog) and low‐intensity agriculture (American toad and western chorus frog). Habitat configurations at surprisingly large spatial scales (5–10 km from surveyed populations) were most closely associated with transitions in local anuran populations, implying that large‐scale extinction–recolonization dynamics influence population transitions, a result land managers should consider in conservation planning.
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 | 0.001 | 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".