Short-term response to season of burn by amphibians and reptiles in a Florida longleaf pine – wiregrass sandhill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated how herpetofauna respond to burning and burn season in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) sandhills by contrasting preburn species richness, diversity, and evenness and captures of six reptile and six amphibian species to the first (Y+1) or second (Y+2) year after burn or between dormant-season burns (DSB) and growing-season burns (GSB). Responses to burning overall or burn season were inconsistent among species; several showed no response, whereas others responded positively or negatively. Most responses were evident only in Y+1. Reptile species richness, diversity, and evenness responses were not detected. Amphibian richness increased after burning overall; diversity and evenness decreased more in GSB than in DSB in Y+1. Southern toad (Anaxyrus terrestris (Bonnaterre, 1789)) captures increased and Florida crowned snake (Tantilla relicta Telford, 1966) captures decreased following burns overall in Y+1. Ground skink (Scincella lateralis (Say in James, 1823)) captures increased more in DSB than GSB in Y+1. Florida gopher frog (Lithobates capito (LeConte, 1855)) and southeastern five-lined skink (Plestiodon inexpectatus; Taylor, 1932) captures increased, and oak toad (Anaxyrus quercicus (Holbrook, 1840)) decreased more in GSB than DSB in Y+2. Responses were likely due to changes in aboveground activity affecting captures or (for amphibians especially) annual variability in captures unrelated to burns. Our results indicated that reptiles and amphibians of sandhills are resilient to short-term effects of burning overall and burn season.
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".