Response of American Toads and Their Invertebrate Prey to Experimentally Elevated Soil pH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acidification can have broad effects on forest ecosystems, ranging from consequences for individual organisms to alterations in trophic dynamics. While the effects of acidification on certain aspects of forest ecosystems have been well studied, less is known about the influence of soil acidification on the forest floor food web that includes amphibians and invertebrates. We investigated the effects of acidification on the American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus) and its interaction with the forest floor invertebrate community. We evaluated survival, growth, and diet of newly metamorphosed toads placed in terrestrial enclosures in forest plots with either experimentally elevated soil pH or untreated, acidified soils. We also conducted invertebrate pitfall sampling in these two soil pH types to evaluate the trophic interactions between toads and invertebrates. Toad mass after 90 days tended to be larger in plots with elevated soil pH, although survival and diet did not differ between soil pH types. We found no effect of soil pH on invertebrate abundances nor overall invertebrate diversity. We also found no evidence that toads exhibited top-down control of the invertebrate community. Collectively, our results indicate that acidified soils did not affect forest floor trophic dynamics. The presence of temporary enclosures we constructed, however, significantly reduced invertebrate abundances and overall diversity. Thus, the strong effect these structures can have on invertebrate communities should be considered when used in future studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".