Diurnal? Calling activity patterns reveal nocturnal habits in the aposematic toad <i>Melanophryniscus</i> <i>rubriventris</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In diurnal species with short breeding seasons, an extension of diel activity to the night hours could be favoured to maximize mating opportunities, but individuals must deal with physiological and behavioural constraints. We tested this hypothesis in the Yungas Red-belly Toad (Melanophryniscus rubriventris (Vellard, 1947)). We registered the diel pattern of male calling activity in two localities using automated recording systems, and related it to abiotic factors such as temperature, relative air humidity, and precipitation. The diel pattern of vocalization was mainly diurnal. Interestingly though, nocturnal calling activity was a common feature, representing between 40% and 43% of call records in both localities. Vocal activity was significantly influenced by time of the day and presence of rainfall. Calling males showed high plasticity, with activity in the entire environmental range of relative air humidity and temperature. Nocturnal calling seems to play an important role in the mating strategy of males, and it is probably more frequent in the genus Melanophryniscus than currently assumed. We discuss the implications of our findings in relation to different aspects of ecology of the species and suggest that bright colouration in M. rubriventris might result from a compromise between several nonconflicting functions (e.g., aposematism and thermoregulation).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".