Photoprotective compounds in weakly and strongly pigmented copepods and co‐occurring cladocerans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. The prevalence of mycosporine‐like amino acids (MAAs) – a group of potential ultraviolet (UV)‐photoprotective compounds – was surveyed across 11 species of freshwater copepods from 20 lakes of varying ultraviolet radiation (UVR) transparency in North America, New Zealand and Argentina. Co‐occurring cladocerans were also analysed (seven species from 12 lakes). Many of the calanoid copepod populations were red with carotenoid pigmentation, allowing comparison of MAA and carotenoid accumulation as photoprotective strategies. 2. In two Pennsylvania (U.S.A.) lakes, MAA and carotenoid contents were followed during the early spring to mid‐summer period of lake warming. A pronounced seasonal pattern of higher carotenoid/low MAA content in spring, shifting to low carotenoid/higher MAA content in summer, was observed in calanoids from the more UV transparent lake. 3. All copepod samples contained MAAs. Visibly red calanoids, especially southern Hemisphere Boeckella, often had moderate to high concentrations (2.5–11 μg MAA mg−1 dw), but low concentrations (0.04–1 μg MAA mg−1 dw) in some N. American red calanoids show that high carotenoid pigmentation (e.g. 5–10 μg carotenoid mg−1 dw) does not necessarily imply high MAA content. 4. No cladoceran sample had more than trace amounts of MAAs (<0.05 μg mg−1 dw). Therefore, MAA accumulation does not seem to be a photoprotective strategy utilized by Daphnia (five species from nine lakes) or other cladocerans. 5. Seven identifiable MAAs were widely distributed among both calanoids and cyclopoids. Shinorine was ubiquitous and was usually the most abundant MAA in N. American samples. In contrast, porphyra‐334 was the predominant MAA in the southern Hemisphere Boeckella. 6. Copepods from higher UVR lakes tended to have a higher MAA content, but this relationship was statistically weak overall and taxon‐specific when found.
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 | 0.001 | 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".