Male advertisement calling tactics in northern and southern populations of spring peepers (pseudacris crucifer)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of reproductive isolation is the foundation of species formation but identifying the factors that underlie this process can be challenging. Reproductive isolation can arise because of ecological divergence or direct selection on traits associated with the mating system; however, these drivers are not mutually exclusive, and one may influence the other. Often populations of a species that are geographically isolated also display divergence in behavioural characteristics, as is evident in my focal species, the spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), a broadly distributed North American treefrog. Male spring peepers in the northern portion of the species’ range exclusively call from ground-level within breeding aggregations, whereas individuals in populations at the southern portion of the species’ range tend to perch arboreally when calling. I test whether mating call perch site selection in spring peepers might relate to seasonal changes in vegetation structure and thus influence acoustic transmission success. Results of playback transmission experiments conducted in Florida and Ontario suggest that southern populations might have higher acoustic transmission success when calling from arboreal perches while transmission of spring peeper mating calls in northern habitats appear more effective at ground-level over short distances or exhibit no differences between the two perch heights over longer distances. Although relative humidity, air temperature, and obstacles such as vegetation can affect acoustic transmission, my samples sizes and thus statistical power were insufficient to compare directly variation of transmission success between Florida and Ontario; however, I did document trends that implied differences between the two regions. My results suggest that behavioural differences in male calling between Florida and Ontario are caused, at least in part, by pressures to optimize acoustic transmission of mating calls in their respective habitats. If true, these divergent selective pressures might ultimately contribute to the evolution of reproductive isolation. Future research should focus on determining why acoustic transmission of mating calls differs between northern and southern environments, and whether differences in calling behaviour would affect mating success in these two regions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".