Seasonal variation of behavioural thermoregulation in the Spotted Salamander ( <i>Ambystoma maculatum</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mounting evidence suggests that temperature seasonality plays a pivotal role in shaping the thermal biology of ectotherms. However, we still have a limited understanding of how amphibians maintain thermal balance in the face of varying temperatures, especially in fossorial species. Due to thermal buffering underground, theory predicts relaxed selection pressure over thermoregulation in fossorial ectotherms. As a result, fossorial ectotherms typically show low thermoregulatory precision and low evidence of thermotactic behaviours when tested in laboratory thermal gradients. In this study, we evaluated how temperature selection ( T sel ) and behavioural thermoregulation differed between seasons in the fossorial Spotted Salamander ( Ambystoma maculatum ). By comparing thermoregulatory parameters between the activity and overwintering seasons, we provide evidence that A . maculatum engages in active behavioural thermoregulation despite its fossorial habit. In both seasons, we found T sel to be consistently offset higher than prevailing thermal conditions. Thermoregulation differed between seasons, with salamanders having higher T sel and showing greater evidence of thermophilic behaviours in the active season compared to the overwintering season. Our study highlights that the combination of behavioural and thermal biology measurements is a necessary step to better understand the mechanisms that underlie body temperature control in amphibians. Ultimately, our study provides a broader understanding of thermoregulation in amphibians, particularly in the context of behavioural responses to seasonality in fossorial species. Summary statement By comparing thermoregulatory parameters between seasons, we demonstrate that the Spotted Salamander engages in active behavioural thermoregulation despite being fossorial.
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".