The effects of ultraviolet radiation on a freshwater prey fish: physiological stress response, club cell investment, and alarm cue production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent anthropogenic activities have caused deleterious effects to the stratospheric ozone layer, resulting in a global increase in the level of ultraviolet radiation (UVR). Understanding the way that organisms respond to such stressors is key to predicting the effects of anthropogenic activities on aquatic ecosystems and the species that inhabit them. The epidermal layer of the skin of fishes is not keratinized and acts as the primary interface between the fish and its environment. The skin of many species of fishes contains large epidermal club cells (ECCs) that are known to release chemicals (alarm cues) serving to warn other fishes of danger. However, the alarm role of the cells is likely secondary to their role in the immune system. Recent research suggests that ECCs in the epidermis may play a role in protecting the fish from damage caused by UVR. In the present study, we examined the effects of in vivo exposure to UVR on fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), specifically investigating ECC investment, physiological stress responses, and alarm cue production. We found that fish exposed to UVR showed an increase in cortisol levels and a substantive decrease in ECC investment compared to non-exposed controls. Unexpectedly, our subsequent analysis of the behavioural response of fish to alarm cues revealed no difference in the potency of the cues prepared from the skin of UV-exposed or non-exposed minnows. Our results indicate that, although nonlethal, UVR exposure may lead to secondary mortality by altering the fish immune system, although this same exposure may have little influence on chemically-mediated predator–prey interactions. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 105, 832–841.
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".