Back

Microbiome plasticity, not gut morphology, is linked to amphibian larval performance under elevated temperatures and low food quality

Ruthsatz, K.; Hughey, M. C.; Tuerk, M.; de Amaral, M.; Glos, J.; Eterovick, P. C.

2026-07-27 ecology
10.64898/2026.07.25.740725 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In many ecosystems, anthropogenic warming is reshaping thermal regimes, leading to resource quality declines and imposing a dual constraint for ectotherms: elevated metabolic demand coupled with reduced assimilable energy. We tested whether plasticity in gut morphology and gut microbiome can buffer amphibian larvae against these concurrent stressors. Common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles were reared at two temperatures (18 vs. 24.5{degrees}C) crossed with three food-quality treatments (low, medium, high). We quantified growth and developmental rates, critical thermal limits (CTmax, CTmin), gut morphology (mass, relative length), and gut bacterial diversity and composition, together with predicted functional pathways. Warming accelerated growth and development and increased CTmax. Food quality increased growth and development, with temperature-dependent effects on developmental rate and CTmax. Gut mass declined at higher temperature and low-quality diets, but relative gut length showed only modest diet effects and no temperature dependence. Bacterial community composition and structure shifted with temperature and food quality. Predicted pathways suggest functional reconfiguration under warming and low food quality, consistent with sustaining energy acquisition and mitigating metabolic and oxidative stress. Together, these results implicate microbiome plasticity, rather than gut morphological plasticity, as a candidate mechanism supporting larval performance and heat-tolerance acclimation under warming and low food quality.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.