MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088902188 · doi:10.1242/jeb.02197

Rapid increase in the partial pressure of NH3 on the cutaneous surface of air-exposed mangrove killifish,<i>Rivulus marmoratus</i>

2006· article· en· W2088902188 on OpenAlexaff
S. L. Litwiller, Matthew J. O’Donnell, Patricia A. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatilisationKillifishMangroveEnvironmental chemistryBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>ChemistryAnimal scienceEcologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mangrove killifish, Rivulus marmoratus, are tolerant of prolonged periods of air exposure (>30 days). Air-exposed R. marmoratus eliminate more than 40% of their total ammonia through NH(3) volatilization; however, the sites and mechanisms are unclear. We hypothesized that the cutaneous surface is an important site of NH(3) volatilization in air-exposed R. marmoratus. Ion-selective microelectrodes were used to measure the NH(4)(+) concentration and pH in the boundary layer on the cutaneous surface of fish in water or air (acute: 1 h, chronic: 11 days). Following acute and chronic air exposure, there was a approximately 18-fold increase in the NH(4)(+) concentration and a 0.3-0.6 pH unit increase on the cutaneous surface of R. marmoratus. In air-exposed fish, the calculated cutaneous partial pressure (P(NH(3))) was 608-1,251 microTorr, representing a 33- to 75-fold increase over control (immersed) fish. The P(NH(3)) on the cutaneous surface water film was more than sufficient to account for the rate of NH(3) volatilization under terrestrial conditions. Together, these data indicate that during air exposure, R. marmoratus utilize the cutaneous surface as a key site of NH(3) volatilization.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207