Embryonic background risk promotes the survival of tadpoles facing surface predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to intense predation risk can induce morphological and behavioural phenotypes that prepare prey, often at young ages, for surviving attacks from unknown predators. However, previous studies revealed that this survival advantage depended on the predator species. Here, we used alarm cues from injured conspecifics to simulate a period of high predation risk for embryonic wood frogs, Lithobates sylvaticus. Two weeks post-hatching, we tested whether the embryonic risk exposure influenced survival in encounters with two novel predators: (1) a spider (Dolomedes sp.) that ambushes prey exclusively on the surface of the water, and (2) the adult predacious diving beetle (Dytiscus sp.) which displays underwater sit-and-wait posture and pursuit tactics. Tadpoles exposed to embryonic high-risk survived longer when encountering spiders, whereas background risk had no influence on survival with adult beetles. These findings, coupled with survival studies involving other predator types, indicate that a high-risk environment promotes tadpole survival in future encounters with unknown sit-and-wait predators, but at the cost of increased vulnerability to novel predators capable of active pursuit.
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 | 0.000 | 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".