MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2211565022 · doi:10.1242/jeb.132530

The benefits of being a fish egg out of water

2015· article· en· W2211565022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyFecundityHuman fertilizationFisheryEcologyFish farmingAquacultureAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first terrestrial animals were true pioneers. Having heaved themselves out of their swampy homes onto dry land, they were finally able to take full advantage of the metabolic benefits of unfettered access to an abundant oxygen supply. But what advantages could this oxygen bonanza provide for fish eggs laid out of water? Michael Wells, Andy Turko and Patricia Wright from the University of Guelph explain that so long as the developing fish embryos remain moist, they should develop faster than their aquatic counterparts, thanks to the enriched oxygen. However, no one had ever systematically compared the metabolic trade-offs when fish eggs develop in water and air. Explaining that the amphibious fish mangrove rivulus is equally happy laying its eggs in and out of water and that the fish are capable of self-fertilization – producing batches of genetically identical eggs – Wright and her colleagues set about assessing the benefits of a terrestrial versus aquatic start in life for fish embryos.Suspecting that an abundant oxygen supply would improve the fish's fecundity, Wells measured the egg production of adult rivulus in water and on land and found that the terrestrial fish produced almost three times as many eggs as the fish in water. In addition, the eggs that were exposed to air developed faster than the aquatic eggs, with 95% reaching a stage where they could hatch after 15 days, compared with 45% in aquatic eggs. And when Wells compared how much oxygen the two sets of embryos consumed, he was impressed to see that the air-reared eggs consumed 44% less oxygen than the submerged embryos, in addition to retaining larger egg-yolk reserves. Next, Wells tested the fish's activity levels as they wafted oxygen-laden fluid in their eggs with their gill covers (opercula) and noticed that early in development (7 days after egg release) the water-reared embryos moved their opercula far more than the air-reared eggs. And when the air-reared eggs were returned to water, their metabolic rate and movement increased significantly, ‘Supporting the hypothesis that Kryptolebias marmoratus [mangrove rivulus] embryos use micro-environment manipulation to maintain oxygen uptake,’ the team says. They also calculated the metabolic cost of the opercular movements when the 30-day-old air-reared eggs were returned to water, discovering that the embryos consumed 64% more oxygen than embryos that were more static. And when the team compared the body size and survival of the embryos after they developed into adults, they found no ill effects of the different starts in life, showing that oxygen availability in the earliest life stages had little effect on the fish's long-term development.The air-reared fish eggs seemed to benefit from their oxygen-rich start in life, developing faster while preserving their limited reserves for use after hatching. And Wright says, ‘Terrestrial rearing is energetically more favourable and, by extension, the energy savings may have provided the selective pressure favouring the evolution of terrestriality’.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→