Survival in adults of the water frog<i>Rana lessonae</i>and its hybridogenetic associate<i>Rana esculenta</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using recent developments in capturemarkrecapture modelling, I analysed survival rates of adults of two species of water frogs, the parent species Rana lessonae and its sexual parasite, the hybrid Rana esculenta. Frogs were caught in four different breeding ponds between 1995 and 1998 and the effects of genotype (= species), sex, pond, and time on survival rates and recapture probabilities were tested. Survival rates were consistently higher in R. lessonae than in R. esculenta. Recapture probability was higher in males than in females. In both species, survival rates were constant during spring and summer and similar in all years of the investigation, average monthly survival rates being lower than those during autumn and winter. The variation in annual survival rates (7284% for R. lessonae and 5370% for R. esculenta) is probably caused by differences in winter survival rates. Capturemarkrecapture models cannot separate mortality and emigration and hence usually underestimate survival rates. To eliminate this source of error, I quantified emigration, which ranged from 0 to 29% at the four ponds. After correcting for these emigration rates, I found no differences in survival rates among the four ponds. The overall high survival rates of adult R. lessonae compared with R. esculenta partially compensate for the hybrid's initial reproductive advantage in terms of mating, fertility, and larval development and, hence, contribute to stabilising mixed populations.
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".