Thermal Optima and Tolerance in the Eurythermic Goldfish (<i>Carassius auratus</i>): Relationships between Whole-Animal Aerobic Capacity and Maximum Heart Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wide thermal tolerance range of a eurythermic fish (goldfish, Carassius auratus) was used to evaluate how temperature performance curves derived from maximum heart rate (fH) related to those for aerobic scope. For acclimation temperatures of 12°, 20°, and 28°C, optimum temperatures derived from aerobic scope curves (Topt) were 19.9° ± 0.4°, 19.3° ± 0.8°, and 28.7° ± 0.8°C, respectively. The Arrhenius breakpoint temperatures (TAB) for maximum fH were 21.5° ± 0.6°, 23.8° ± 0.9°, and 24.6° ± 0.5°C, respectively. The TQB (temperature where the incremental Q10 of maximum fH decreased abruptly below 1.9) was 24.0° ± 0.7° and 29.8° ± 0.6°C for the 12° and 28°C acclimation temperatures, respectively, and was within the Topt window (11.5°-30.3° and 26.9°-30.5°C, respectively), but TQB for the 20°C acclimation temperature (27.3° ± 0.6°C) was higher than the Topt window (15.4°-23.2°C). Warm acclimation increased the upper critical temperature (Tcrit; from 37.2° ± 0.7° to 44.7° ± 11.8°C) as well as the temperature that triggered a cardiac arrhythmia (Tarr; from 31.1° ± 0.7° to 39.3° ± 0.4°C). In conclusion, we propose that maximum fH and its associated rate transition temperatures (TAB, TQB, and Tarr) can be used to estimate the upper thermal tolerance of eurythermic as well as stenothermic fish independent of acclimation temperature. All the same, great care is needed with such evaluations. For the goldfish, while TAB and TQB were always within the Topt window for 90% of maximum aerobic scope and Topt was closely associated with TAB for 12°C-acclimated fish, TQB had the closest association after 28°C acclimation, and both TAB and TQB were above the Topt window after 20°C acclimation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".