MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159889493 · doi:10.1242/jeb.101030

The effect of water temperature and flow on respiration in barnacles: patterns of mass transfer versus kinetic limitation

2014· article· en· W2159889493 on OpenAlexaff
Michael T. Nishizaki, Emily Carrington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespirationMass transferKinetic energyChemistryOxygenWater flowEnvironmental chemistryEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyBotanySoil scienceChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In aquatic systems, physiological processes such as respiration, photosynthesis and calcification are potentially limited by the exchange of dissolved materials between organisms and their environment. The nature and extent of physiological limitation is, therefore, likely to be dependent on environmental conditions. Here, we assessed the metabolic sensitivity of barnacles under a range of water temperatures and velocities, two factors that influence their distribution. Respiration rates increased in response to changes in temperature and flow, with an interaction where flow had less influence on respiration at low temperatures, and a much larger effect at high temperatures. Model analysis suggested that respiration is mass transfer limited under conditions of low velocity (<7.5 cm (-1)) and high temperature (20-25°C). In contrast, limitation by uptake reaction kinetics, when the biotic capacity of barnacles to absorb and process oxygen is slower than its physical delivery by mass transport, prevailed at high flows (40-150 cm s(-1)) and low temperatures (5-15°C). Moreover, there are intermediate flow-temperature conditions where both mass transfer and kinetic limitation are important. Behavioral monitoring revealed that barnacles fully extend their cirral appendages at low flows and display abbreviated 'testing' behaviors at high flows, suggesting some form of mechanical limitation. In low flow-high temperature treatments, however, barnacles displayed distinct 'pumping' behaviors that may serve to increase ventilation. Our results suggest that in slow-moving waters, respiration may become mass transfer limited as temperatures rise, whereas faster flows may serve to ameliorate the effects of elevated temperatures. Moreover, these results underscore the necessity for approaches that evaluate the combined effects of multiple environmental factors when examining physiological and behavioral performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207