MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4367841859 · doi:10.1242/jeb.245005

Murray cod waterhole woes

2023· article· en· W4367841859 sur OpenAlexaff
Angelina Dichiera

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiquePhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFish <Actinopterygii>Fish killFisheryFreshwater fishEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

During bouts of prolonged drought and little to no river flow, waterholes are a haven for freshwater fishes. However, as humans divert more water for their own use and as global temperatures rise, these small bodies of water are increasingly vulnerable to climbing temperatures and low oxygen levels. Fortunately, some fishes are able to change quickly to cope with high temperatures, and occasionally these changes also help them do better with low oxygen levels. But size matters when it comes to dealing with these stressors. Big fish are thought to deal with low oxygen better than small fish, and small fish are thought to deal better with high temperatures, but all are likely to be vulnerable when both stressful circumstances occur simultaneously. To investigate how body size influences a fish's ability to tolerate both high heat and low oxygen, Darren McPhee, with researchers from the University of Queensland and the Queensland Department of Regional Development, Australia, turned to massive Murray cod – which can grow to the size of a giant panda (over 100 kg) – to find out how they deal with the combined threat.Working with fish ranging from 0.2 g to 3 kg, the team transferred the animals to water at temperatures mimicking a hot summer (28°C). After 4 weeks, all of the cod, regardless of size, increased the temperature at which they lose their balance (known as the upper thermal limit), indicating that the cod are able to deal with persistent high temperatures. But when the team tested the fish's abilities to remain upright at high temperatures as the water oxygen levels decreased, their ability to tolerate heat declined. Surprisingly, the fish's body sizes had an unusual impact on their ability to withstand high temperatures when their oxygen supply was restricted. As expected, when the fish had access to well-oxygenated water (100% and 50% oxygen saturation), the smaller animals coped better with high temperatures than the big fish. But this pattern flipped when the oxygen levels in the water were low (30% and 16% oxygen saturation), where the largest fish tolerated the high temperatures better than the smaller fish. Intriguingly, this didn't mean that the big fish were thermal tolerance champions. At the lowest oxygen level (16% oxygen saturation), the mid-sized fish coped best with the high temperatures.The scientists also tested how short-term and persistent exposure to different temperatures affected the cod's ability to survive low oxygen in several different ways. In the short term (less than 24 h), fish exposed to high temperatures breathed faster and lost their balance at an oxygen level twice as high as what they would normally handle. But when exposed to a high heat for 4 weeks, the responses to low oxygen weren't quite as drastic. Again, the largest cod were the least bothered by decreasing oxygen – not changing their breathing frequency and taking longer to lose their balance (unlike the little fish).Although Murray cod of all sizes demonstrated an amazing ability to cope with high temperatures in the lab, McPhee and colleagues also went into the wild to check the water quality of three Queensland waterholes that are much loved by the cod. The researchers found that the fish are living dangerously close to the edge – at the limit of the high temperatures and low oxygen levels that they can endure – especially during the summer. And, as the smallest cod are most vulnerable to the combined stress of high temperature and low oxygen, this slow-growing species is at genuine risk from catastrophic loss if their littlest ones succumb in the face of the deadly duo.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,098
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,194

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0250,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→Travaux en français237 207→