DELAYED COSTS OF AN INDUCED DEFENSE IN TADPOLES? MORPHOLOGY, HOPPING, AND DEVELOPMENT RATE AT METAMORPHOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models for the evolution of plasticity predict that individuals having phenotypes induced by exposure to enemies should experience relatively low fitness when enemies are absent. However, costs of induced phenotypes have been difficult to find in both plants and animals, perhaps because costs are expressed at later stages in the life cycle. We searched for delayed costs of an induced defense in larvae of the water frog Rana ridibunda, which exhibits strong phenotypic responses to predators. Tadpoles grew to metamorphosis in outdoor artificial ponds, in either the presence or absence of Aeshna dragonfly larvae confined within cages. We collected metamorphs at forelimb emergence, estimated their development rate until tail resorption was complete, and measured their body and leg shape and hopping performance. Development rate through metamorphosis reflects the duration of a transitional period during which metamorphs are especially vulnerable to predators, and hopping performance may reflect ability to escape predators. Froglets from the dragonfly treatment lost mass through metamorphosis significantly faster than those from predator-free ponds, but they resorbed their tails at about the same rate, despite the fact that their tails were relatively large to begin with. Froglets developing from predator-induced tadpoles had shorter, more muscular legs, and hopped 5% longer distances (difference not significant). Therefore, producing an induced defense against insect predators during the tadpole stage did not exact a cost during or immediately after metamorphosis; if anything, tadpoles with the predator-induced phenotype gave rise to more vigorous froglets. These results focus attention on other costs of the induced phenotype, as well as alternative explanations for plasticity that do not rely on direct fitness trade-offs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".