MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518009062 · doi:10.1111/oik.03305

Determinants and co‐expression of anti‐predator responses in amphibian tadpoles: a meta‐analysis

2016· article· en· W2518009062 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas J. Hossie, Kristen N. Landolt, Dennis L. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTadpole (physics)PredationPredatorBiologyAmphibianEcologyTaxonZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide range of taxa respond to perceived predation risk (PPR) through inducible defenses, and many prey are capable of responding both behaviorally and morphologically to the same risk event. In cases where multiple defenses confer protection by independent means (i.e. they are mechanistically independent) responses will either be co‐expressed, or the expression of one defense will limit the capacity (or need) to respond along another axis. Our ability to generate a broad understanding of these patters has been limited, in part, by difficulties in comparing results across studies that employ distinct experimental protocols. Using the extensive literature on tadpole responses to PPR, we conducted a meta‐analysis to identify the ecological and experimental determinants of inducible defence expression. We then assessed whether the magnitude of response to PPR along behavioural versus morphological response axes was positively, or negatively, correlated. The most commonly quantified responses to perceived risk in tadpoles included reductions in movement and swimming behaviour, and altered tail morphology. Our analyses reveal that tadpole behavioural responses are strongly influenced by prey family, predator taxon, evolutionary history with the predator (native versus non‐native), amount of prey consumed by the predator, and how perceived risk was manipulated (e.g. presence versus absence of alarm cues). Tail morphology was similarly influenced by these factors, but also whether the target prey was palatable to predators. Thus, our results identify ecological and experimental features that critically influence the observed effect size in tadpole responses to PPR. A positive correlation between behavioural and morphological responses in studies where both were measured indicates that trait co‐specialization is the predominant pattern of defense deployment in larval amphibians. This positive relationship suggests that survival tends to be maximized in tadpoles through equivalent co‐activation of multiple independent axes of protection, opposed to maximal expression along any single axis. Synthesis Our understanding of plastic responses to perceived predation risk (PPR) has benefited substantially from the vast amount of experimental work examining inducible defences in anuran tadpoles. Indeed this research has illustrated the wide variety of ways that prey animals can respond to the same risk event. We conducted a metaanalysis to identify the key ecological and experimental determinants of inducible defence expression. We then show that, in most cases, behavioural and morphological responses to PPR tend to be co‐expressed suggesting that responding along one axis (moving behaviour) does not limit their ability to respond along another distinct axis (tail morphology).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations57
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207