Eyes wide open: Frogs with reduction of auditory communication ability show lower eye, but higher corneal, investment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vocal communication is the primary mechanism of mate attraction in frogs, but some species have lost the auditory structures needed to hear airborne sounds, raising the question of how they communicate in their absence. We hypothesized that frog species with auditory system reductions have compensated through enhanced visual ability, including through enlarged eyes. To test this trade-off hypothesis, we estimated relative eye and corneal investment across 264 species and tested for correlations with auditory reduction. Contrary to our expectations, we found that species with auditory reductions had smaller eye size and lower eye investment. Instead, we found that non-fossorial species with auditory reductions had significantly greater corneal investment, after controlling for habitat-based variation. Enlarged corneas enhance light sensitivity but are expected to have a lower metabolic cost than larger eyes. Relatively larger corneas may, in combination with other changes, allow frogs with auditory reductions to rely more on vision for communication, while at the same time minimizing energetic costs in small animals that are already metabolically constrained. Our findings suggest that the visual system plays an adaptive role in response to the reduction of auditory communication and highlights the condition of sensory systems as an important factor shaping frog evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".