MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995639289 · doi:10.1080/02705060.2011.563998

The effect of temperature on life history parameters and cost of reproduction in the rotifer<i>Brachionus calyciflorus</i>

2011· article· en· W1995639289 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Kauler, Hildegard E. Enesco

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Freshwater Ecology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotiferBrachionus calyciflorusLongevityFecundityBiologyReproductionBrachionusEcologyZoologyGeneration timeReproductive successAnimal scienceDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used the monogonont rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, to study the effect of ambient temperatures of 16°C, 22°C, and 29°C on longevity and life history parameters. We found that temperature had a significant relationship with longevity. At lower temperature, there was prolongation of the pre-reproductive and reproductive periods, but fecundity was reduced significantly due to suppression of the reproductive rate. When lifespan of short- and long-lived rotifers was compared, we found that the significant longevity difference in these rotifers was due to extension of reproductive and post-reproductive periods. The fecundity was significantly higher in longer lived rotifers due to the extension of the reproductive period, but the reproductive rate was significantly lower in these rotifers. A consistent negative relationship between rotifer longevity and the rate of reproduction was observed at all temperatures, and it was particularly pronounced in rotifers reproducing heavily at the end of the reproductive stage of their life cycle. The combined rate of living/oxidative damage theory may help explain the temperature effects that we observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Freshwater EcologySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207