Bibliographic record
Abstract
In species with complex life cycles such as amphibians, population regulation can occur in one or multiple stages. Density effects in the larval, aquatic stage of the amphibian life cycle have been widely documented, leading many researchers to assume that this is the stage in which amphibian populations are regulated. However, recent evidence suggests that factors affecting survival and reproduction in the terrestrial stage may play a greater role in the growth and decline of amphibian populations than previously thought. I review the evidence for density-dependent population regulation in the terrestrial stage of amphibians and argue that variation in body size may be an important mechanism linking population density to changes in population growth rate (CHAPTER ONE). I used data from a 23-year population survey at Long Point, Ontario and conducted summer growth-rate surveys to examine the body size-abundance relationship in Fowler's Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri). Over the past 10 years of the population survey at Long Point, we observed a significant increase in body size (R² = 0.874, p = <0.001) that was coincident with a previously detected negative trend in abundance. The age structure of this population is highly unstable, but overall the average age is getting older (R² = 0.325, p= < 0.01) (CHAPTER TWO). Somatic growth rates in Fowler's toad toadlets are also highly variable and are significantly inversely correlated with the density of adults (R² = 0.98, p = 0.010) (CHAPTER THREE). The single most important factor influencing average body size on a long time-scale is abundance (R² = 0.713, p = <0.001) (CHAPTER FOUR). Therefore, body size variation in these toads is likely related to density-dependent resource availability for growth in the terrestrial stage.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".