Patterns of body size and habitat use in a lizard assemblage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
:We quantified differences in the distribution and behaviours of three territorial species of phrynosomatine lizard (Urosaurus ornatus, Uta stansburiana, and Sceloporus undulatus) between two habitats on the elevated mesas of western Colorado. Community lizard density was greater on rock ridges dissecting pinyon-juniper woodland than in the surrounding flat, open areas. The frequency of community-level interactions, or behaviours directed towards another lizard of any species, was also greater in the rock compared to the flatland habitat for S. undulatus. Snout-vent length frequency distributions of all three species differed between habitats, with larger lizards residing in the rock habitat. For each species, the distribution of hatchling lizards between habitats was opposite to that expected based on the distribution of conspecific adult females, with the majority of adult females residing in the rock habitat and the majority of hatchlings in the flatland. Indices of juvenile recruitment (number of hatchlings per adult female) in the flatland habitat approximated average clutch size for U. ornatus and U. stansburiana despite known high rates of juvenile mortality in these species. We suggest that ontogenetic habitat shifts may explain the observed age and size distributions of species between habitats. Hatchlings may disperse from rock to flatland to avoid aggression and predation from adult lizards in the rock habitat and return when they have attained larger body size and thus face reduced predation risk, being presumably more able to compete within social hierarchies.
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".