Structure and Dynamics of<i>Lithobates sylvaticus</i>(Wood Frog) at the Periphery of Its Range in Missouri
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithobates (Rana) sylvaticus (Wood Frog) has an extensive distribution primarily in the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern US and throughout Canada and Alaska. However, peripheral populations exist along the southern edge of its range, including in the Ozark regions of Missouri and Arkansas. We present results on the structure and dynamics of 5 Wood Frog populations studied over 4 years (2004–2007) at the edge of the species' range in central Missouri. We used drift fences and pitfall traps surrounding breeding ponds to sample adults and metamorphosing juveniles. We captured breeding males between 7 February and 13 March, and females between 28 February and 16 March. The sex ratio was male-biased (M:F = 2.4), females were larger than males (mean SVL = 61.3 and 52.3 mm, respectively), and the larval period averaged 14 weeks. The metamorphs had a mean SVL of 18.1 mm and varied in number from 0 to 400 individuals per pond per year. The mean juvenile production per female was 8.7 (range = 0–52), and mean survival from egg to juvenile was 1.28% (range = 0–6.08%). Land managers should consider the species' small population sizes, low recruitment, survival rates of terrestrial stages, and the interaction of population dynamics with changing climate conditions when planning for conservation of Wood Frog populations at the periphery of the species' range.
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".