Avoidance responses to scents of snakes that pose different risks of predation by adult natterjack toads, Bufo calamita
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many antipredator behaviors are mediated by the ability of prey to recognize chemical cues from predators. Adult amphibians mainly use vision to detect predators, but the ability to detect chemicals of predators and conspecifics could be advantageous, especially when assessing safety of potential refuges where the use of visual cues is limited. We analyzed in the laboratory whether refuge choice by adult natterjack toads ( Bufo calamita Laurenti, 1768) was influenced by the presence in the refuge of chemical cues from conspecifics or from two different snake predators ( Natrix maura (L., 1758) and Natrix natrix (L., 1758)). Natterjack toads avoided refuges scented by snakes and spent less time in refuges with snake scent than in refuges with conspecific scent. Toads also seemed to have different hiding behaviors depending on the snake species that they found. We concluded that adult natterjack toads were able to recognize and avoid chemical cues of dangerous snakes, but it was not clear whether toads discriminated between chemicals of the two snake species, even though these two snakes might pose different risks of predation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".