Predicting the ecological impact of cane toads (Bufo marinus) on threatened camaenid land snails in north-western Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spread of cane toads (Bufo marinus) through north-western Australia may threaten populations of endemic camaenid land snails because these snails exhibit restricted geographic distributions, low vagility and ‘slow’ life-histories. We conducted laboratory trials to determine whether toads would consume camaenids if they encountered them, and conducted field surveys to evaluate the likelihood of such encounters (on the basis of habitat overlap). In laboratory trials with 13 camaenid species, cane toads were more likely to consume camaenids than were two species of native frogs that we tested (Cyclorana australis, Litoria caerulea). However, field surveys suggested that many camaenids are active on vertical surfaces in limestone outcrops, and cane toads rarely venture into these habitats. Although the preferred habitats and activity patterns of camaenids thus reduce their vulnerability to cane toads, we recommend regular surveys of toad and snail numbers to monitor toad impacts. Given the restricted distributions of threatened saxicoline camaenid species in the Kimberley, localised management of grazing stock and fire is feasible to maintain vine-thicket vegetation cover and snail populations, as well as reducing open habitats favoured by toads.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".