Rearing density and food variety impact growth, development, and survival of larvae in the declining amphibian, <i>Pseudacris maculata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata Agassiz 1850) are a widespread amphibian in North America, but several populations are in decline. Specifically, we are developing captive breeding and reintroduction methods for the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence-Canadian Shield population. Here we present the effects of tadpole density, food variety, and addition of supplemental minerals to rearing water on the growth, development, and survival during the larval and metamorph/juvenile stages. We conducted two experiments using a factorial design. We found that low tadpole density (1 vs. 2 tadpoles/L) and high food variety (five food items vs. three food items) significantly increased tadpole body length and Gosner stage after 2 weeks (p < .001), increased survival to metamorphosis (p < .001), decreased time to metamorphosis (p < .001), and increased weight after metamorphosis (p < .001). On average, tadpoles in the high density/low food treatment, compared to the low density/high food, were 25% smaller after 2 weeks, had 3.9× lower survival to metamorphosis, took 1.25× longer to reach metamorphosis, and weighed 1.5× less after metamorphosis. In contrast, neither density (0.5 vs. 1 tadpole/L) nor mineral supplemented water affected growth and development, but tadpole survival was higher at 1 tadpole/L. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of rearing boreal chorus frogs in captivity and provide guidelines for rearing this and similar species in a laboratory environment.
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".