Growing up in a new world: trait divergence between rural, urban, and invasive populations of an amphibian urban invader
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cities are focal points of introduction for invasive species. Urban evolution might facilitate the success of invasive species in recipient urban habitats. Here we test this hypothesis by rearing tadpoles of a successful amphibian urban coloniser and invader in a common garden environment. We compared growth rate, morphological traits, swimming performance, and developmental rate of guttural toad tadpoles (Sclerophrys gutturalis) from native rural, native urban, and non-native urban habitats. By measuring these traits across ontogeny, we were also able to compare divergence across different origins as the tadpoles develop. The tadpoles of non-native urban origin showed significantly slower developmental rate (e.g., the proportion of tadpoles reaching Gosner stage 31 or higher was lower at age 40 days) than tadpoles of native urban origin. Yet, tadpoles did not differ in growth rate or any morphological or performance trait examined, and none of these traits showed divergent ontogenetic changes between tadpoles of different origin. These findings suggest that prior adaptation to urban habitats in larval traits likely does not play an important role in facilitating the invasion success of guttural toads into other urban habitats. Instead, we suggest that evolutionary changes in larval traits after colonization (e.g., developmental rate), together with decoupling of other traits and phenotypic plasticity might explain how this species succeeded in colonising extra-limital urban habitats.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".