Habitat disturbance alters color contrast and the detectability of cryptic and aposematic frogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Animals use color both to conceal and signal their presence, with patterns that match the background, disrupt shape recognition, or highlight features important for communication. The forms that these color patterns take are responses to the visual systems that observe them and the environments within which they are viewed. Increasingly, however, these environments are being affected by human activity. We studied how pattern characteristics and habitat change may affect the detectability of three frog color patterns from the Bocas del Toro archipelago in Panama: Beige-Striped Brown Allobates talamancae and two spotted morphs of Oophaga pumilio, Black-Spotted Green and Black-Spotted Red. To assess detectability, we used visual modeling of conspecifics and potential predators, along with a computer-based detection experiment with human participants. Although we found no evidence for disruptive camouflage, we did find clear evidence that A. talamancae stripes are inherently more cryptic than O. pumilio spots regardless of color. We found no evidence that color pattern polytypism in O. pumilio is related to differences in the forest floor between natural sites. We did, however, find strong evidence that human disturbance affects the visual environment and modifies absolute and rank order frog detectability. Human-induced environmental change reduces the effectiveness of camouflage in A. talamancae, reduces detectability of Black-Spotted Green O. pumilio, and increases chromatic contrast, but not detectability, in Black-Spotted Red O. pumilio. Insofar as predators may learn about prey defenses and make foraging decisions based on relative prey availability and suitability, such changes may have wider implications for predator–prey dynamics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".