MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

UVB Radiation Affects Growth, Reproduction and Tissue Structure of <i>Daphnia magna</i> Across Several Temperatures

2012· article· en· W2094934938 on OpenAlexaff
Judith D. Huebner, Nancy L. Loadman, Murray D. Wiegand, Erwin Huebner, Daniel Palitsky, William H. Husarewycz

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemistry and Photobiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductionDaphnia magnaBiologyDaphniaBroodAnimal scienceZoologyBotanyToxicologyToxicityEcologyCrustaceanInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effects of daily exposure to UVB on growth, reproduction and histological characteristics of Daphnia magna over two generations at 20, 22, 25 and 30°C. Animals were exposed to 16 h of UVA and photosynthetically active radiation daily. Treated animals received 6 h of UVB during the light phase. Parental (P) generation growth and reproduction was impaired by exposure to UVB at all temperatures, with the poorest production at 30°C. First brood size decreased with UVB exposure; it was lowest at 30°C. Although F1 length at birth increased with P generation age, F1 produced by UVB-exposed mothers were smaller at all temperatures. The F1 generation was followed at 20 and 25°C; at both temperatures UVB exposure reduced F1 growth and reproduction. F1 growth and F2 production were lowest when both P and F1 generations were exposed to UVB. UVB exposure damaged ovarian and gut tissue at both 25 and 30°C; the consequences of this exposure were more severe at 30°C. The observed tissue damage may relate directly to the UVB-induced impairment of growth and reproduction. This study provides new insights into the effects of UVB on an important component of the pelagic zooplankton.

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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemistry and PhotobiologySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207