Skin pH and buffering ability vary between two co-occurring semi-aquatic frog species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amphibians face global declines linked to anthropogenic environmental change, including modifications to freshwater habitats. Human impacts on water chemistry, including acid rain and run-off of road salt into wetlands, may affect the physiology of amphibians with aquatic life stages. Specifically, water pH varies among freshwater habitats and affects amphibian development, behaviour, and physiology. For example, changes in skin pH affect the activity of enzymes on the skin, including those involved in antimicrobial functions. In this study, we explored the ability of free-ranging amphibians to maintain homeostasis across a range of naturally occurring water pH and salinity. We sampled two species of frogs at 19 wetlands around Peterborough, Ontario, measuring water pH, water salinity, and the skin pH of northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens; n = 141) and green frogs (Lithobates clamitans; n = 329). We found that water pH increased with salinity, and was weakly related to the proportion of built-up habitat around wetlands. Frog skin pH was significantly associated with water pH, but both species showed a strong ability to buffer their skin pH across a range of conditions. On average, the ventral skin pH of L. pipiens increased by 0.37 units for each 1 unit increase in water pH, while skin pH of L. clamitans increased by 0.12. Specific responses to water chemistry differed between the two species: skin pH of L. pipiens varied with demographic group and body size, but skin pH of L. clamitans did not. As human effects on wetland habitats increase, these amphibians’ ability to buffer skin pH may provide some protection against anthropogenic changes in wetland water chemistry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".