Selection for upper thermal tolerance in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>Walbaum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum) in southern Western Australia have undergone passive selection for over 19 generations to survive high water temperatures. Based on the conceptual model of 'oxygen- and capacity-limited thermal tolerance', we measured critical thermal maximum (CTmax), maximum heart rate (fH,max) and aerobic scope to test the hypothesis that these rainbow trout can maintain aerobic scope at high temperatures through a robust cardiac performance supporting oxygen delivery. Across five family groups CTmax averaged 29.0±0.02°C. Aerobic scope was maximized at 15.8±0.3°C (Topt), while the upper pejus temperature (Tpej, set at 90% of maximum aerobic scope) was 19.9±0.3°C. Although aerobic scope decreased at temperatures above Topt, the value at 25°C remained well over 40% of the maximum. Furthermore, pharmacologically stimulated fH,max increased with temperature, reaching a peak value between 23.5±0.4 and 24.0±0.4°C (Tmax) for three family groups. The Arrhenius breakpoint temperature (TAB) for fH,max was 20.3±0.3 to 20.7±0.4°C, while the average Q10 breakpoint temperature (TQB, when the incremental Q10<1.6) for fH,max was 21.6±0.2 to 22.0±0.4°C. Collectively, fH,max progressively became less temperature dependent beyond 20°C (TAB and TQB), which coincides with the upper Tpej for aerobic scope. Although upper thermal performance indices for both aerobic scope and fH,max were compared among family groups in this population, appreciable differences were not evident. Compared with other populations of rainbow trout, the present assessment is consistent with the prediction that this strain has undergone selection and shows the ability to tolerate higher water temperatures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".