Seasonal Variation in Sensitivity of Larval Sea Lampreys to the Lampricide 3-Trifluoromethyl-4-Nitrophenol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We evaluated the sensitivity of larval sea lampreys Petromyzon marinus to the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) in a series of toxicity tests in spring and summer. Although noted previously, the seasonal variation in sensitivity to TFM had never been tested as a means of reducing TFM usage in stream treatments. A preliminary study consisted of three spring and four summer static toxicity tests conducted at 12°C. A more comprehensive study consisted of 12 spring and summer paired flow-through toxicity tests conducted both at seasonal water temperatures and at 12°C. The sensitivity of larval sea lampreys to TFM was greater in spring than in summer. The preliminary static toxicity tests indicated that the concentration of TFM needed to kill larval sea lampreys in spring (May and June) was about one-half that required in summer (August); the concentrations lethal to 50% and 99.9% of the test animals (the LC50 and LC99.9 values) were less in spring than in summer. Analysis of variance of the flow-through toxicity data indicated that season significantly affected both the LC50 and LC99.9 values. For all 12 paired flow-through toxicity tests, the spring LC50 and LC99.9 values were less than the corresponding summer values. For 9 of the 12 paired flow-through toxicity tests, the dose–response toxicity lines were parallel and allowed statistical comparison of the LC50 values. The spring LC50 values were significantly lower than the summer values in eight of the nine tests. Verification of a seasonal variation in the sensitivity of larval sea lampreys to TFM will allow inclusion of this factor in the selection model currently used by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans–Canada to schedule lampricide stream treatments.
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".