Abundance, biomass production, nutrient content, and the possible role of terrestrial salamanders in Missouri Ozark forest ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transfer of energy and nutrients largely depends on the role of animals in the movement of biomass between trophic levels and ecosystems. Despite the historical recognition that amphibians could play an important role in the movement of biomass and nutrients, very few studies have provided reliable estimates of abundance and density of amphibians to reveal their true importance. Here, we provide robust estimates of abundance and density of a dominant species, the Southern Redback Salamander (Plethodon serratus Grobman, 1944), in the oak forest ecosystem of the Ozark Highlands in Missouri. We then use the abundance and density estimates to calculate biomass and nutrient content of salamanders at our study sites in the Ozark forests. Salamanders at the Sinkin Experimental Forest comprise a large amount of protein, energy, and nutrients that greatly exceed estimates derived some 35 years ago in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Our estimates (7 300 – 12 900 salamanders·ha −1 ) are 2–4 times greater than the values reported by Burton and Likens (1975a, Ecology, 56: 1068–1080; 1975b, Copeia, 1975: 541–546). Furthermore, we show that density estimates of other small plethodontid species reported in the literature are nearly an order of magnitude greater than that reported by Burton and Likens. We believe this indicates that previous results have underestimated the importance of salamander biomass, nutrient, and energy flux, and their functional role in regulating invertebrates and carbon retention in forest ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".