Postprandial Intestinal Blood Flow, Metabolic Rates, and Exercise in Chinook Salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a relatively large meal (2% body mass of dry pellets), intestinal blood flow in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) increased significantly, up to 81%, between 14 and 29 h postprandially. Also, 15 h postprandially, oxygen consumption (M(2)) was elevated by 128% compared with a measurement of routine M(2) made after 1 wk of fasting. The postprandial increase in MO(2) (the heat increment) was 33 micromol O(2) min(-1) kg(-1). Because intestinal blood flow is known to decrease during swimming activity in fish, we therefore tested the hypothesis that swimming fish would have to make a trade-off between maximum swimming activity and digestive activity by comparing the swimming performance and metabolic rates of fed and fasted chinook salmon. As expected, MO(2) increased exponentially with swimming velocity in both fed and fasted fish. Moreover, the heat increment was irreducible during swimming, such that MO(2) remained approximately 39 micromol O(2) min(-1) kg(-1) higher in fed fish than in fasted fish at all comparable swimming speeds. However, maximum M dot o2 was unaffected by feeding and was identical in both fed and fasted fish (approximately 250 micromol O(2) min(-1) kg(-1)), and, as a result, the critical swimming speed (U(crit)) was 9% lower in the fed fish. Three days after the fish were fed and digestion was completed, MO(2) and U(crit) were not significantly different from those measured in fasted fish. The ability of salmonids to maintain feeding metabolism during prolonged swimming performance is discussed, and it is suggested that reduced swimming performance may be due to postprandial sparing of intestinal blood to support digestion, thereby limiting the allocation of blood flow to locomotory muscles.
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".