UV Radiation and Freshwater Zooplankton: Damage, Protection and Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many laboratory and field studies show that zooplankton are negatively affected when exposed to high intensities of ultraviolet radiation (UVR), most studies also indicate that zooplankton are well adapted to cope with large variations in their UVR exposure in the pelagic zone of lakes. The response mechanisms of zooplankton are diverse and efficient and may explain the success and richness of freshwater zooplankton in optically variable waters. While no single behavioural or physiological protection mechanism seems to be superior, and while several unexplained and contradictory patterns exist in zooplankton UVR ecology, recent increases in our understanding are consistent with UVR playing an important role for zooplankton. This review examines the variability in freshwater zooplankton responses to UVR, with a focus on crustacean zooplankton (Cladocera and Copepoda). We present an overview of UVR-induced damages, and the protection and recovery mechanisms freshwater zooplankton use when exposed to UVR. We review the current knowledge of UVR impact on freshwater zooplankton at species and community levels, and discuss briefly how global change over the last three decades has influenced the UVR milieu in lakes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".