Artificial Displacement Alters Movement Behavior of a Terrestrial Amphibian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homing abilities have been widely documented in amphibians, but it remains unclear whether individuals have homing tendencies in the absence of motivational cues related to breeding and site fidelity. We tested whether artificial displacement would affect the movement behavior of a nonphilopatric terrestrial amphibian, the Fowler's Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri), within its home range and after its breeding season had ended. We translocated 65 male and female Fowler's Toads from their initial points of capture a total of 104 times over one of three different distances (100 m, 250 m, and 500 m) and compared these toads' subsequent 24-h movements with those of a control group of 43 untranslocated toads. To shield the translocated toads from auditory, visual, and olfactory cues en route, we translocated them in opaque enclosed boxes and performed the experiment in the uniformly unobstructed landscape of the Lake Erie shoreline of Long Point, ON, Canada. We mainly investigated directionality bias as the orientation between control and translocated groups, homing tendency as the correlation between movements after translocation and translocation distance, and homing accuracy as the variation in distance between final and initial capture points. Our results provide clear evidence that translocation changes the movement behavior of these toads and that they possess homing tendencies outside of their breeding season. Toads had a strong directional bias to move in the opposite direction to the one in which they were artificially displaced, in contrast with the control group, which showed no directional bias among 61 recorded 24-h movements. This tendency for amphibians to home after artificial displacement might be a significant confounding factor in any procedure involving their relocation.
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) | 0.020 | 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".