MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2159289365 · doi:10.1139/z07-064

Maternally determined adaptation to acidity in<i>Rana arvalis</i>: Are laboratory and field estimates of embryonic stress tolerance congruent?

2007· article· en· W2159289365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mikael Persson, Katja Räsänen, Anssi Laurila, Juha Merilä

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsBiologyAdaptation (eye)Local adaptationPopulationEmbryoZoologyEcologyLarvaGeneticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geographic variation indicating local adaptation, as well as its quantitative genetic basis, is commonly investigated in common garden experiments in the laboratory. However, the applicability of laboratory results to the complex conditions experienced by populations in the wild may be limited. Our previous laboratory experiments showed maternally determined local adaptation in embryonic acid-stress tolerance (viz. survival) of the moor frog, Rana arvalis Nilsson, 1842. Here we tested whether this laboratory finding holds even when embryos are exposed to acid stress in the wild. We conducted reciprocal crosses between an acid-origin population and a neutral-origin population of R. arvalis and transplanted the embryos to an acid site (pH ~4) in the field. Embryonic survival was much lower in the field experiment than in previous laboratory experiments, but, consistent with laboratory work, embryos from acid-origin females had threefold higher survival than embryos from neutral-origin females. These results suggest that laboratory tests can provide appropriate estimates of among population variation, as well as the quantitative genetic basis of acid-stress tolerance in amphibians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAmphibian and Reptile Biology→French-language works237,207→