Physiological responses to hypersalinity correspond to nursery ground usage in two inshore shark species (<i>Mustelus antarcticus</i> & <i>Galeorhinus galeus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shark nurseries are susceptible to environmental fluctuations in salinity because of their shallow, coastal nature; however, the physiological impacts on resident elasmobranchs are largely unknown. Gummy sharks (Mustelus antarcticus) and school sharks (Galeorhinus galeus) use the same Tasmanian estuary as a nursery ground; however, each species has distinct distribution patterns that are coincident with changes in local environmental conditions, such as increases in salinity. We hypothesized that these differences were directly related to differential physiological tolerances to high salinity. To test this hypothesis, we exposed wild, juvenile school and gummy sharks to an environmentally relevant hypersaline (120% SW) event for 48 h. Metabolic rate decreased 20-35% in both species, and gill Na(+)/K(+)-ATPase activity was maintained in gummy sharks but decreased 37% in school sharks. We measured plasma ions (Na(+), K(+), Cl(-)) and osmolytes [urea and trimethylamine oxide (TMAO)], and observed a 33% increase in plasma Na(+) in gummy sharks with hyperosmotic exposure, while school sharks displayed a typical ureosmotic increase in plasma urea (∼20%). With elevated salinity, gill TMAO concentration increased by 42% in school sharks and by 30% in gummy sharks. Indicators of cellular stress (heat shock proteins HSP70, 90 and 110, and ubiquitin) significantly increased in gill and white muscle in both a species- and a tissue-specific manner. Overall, gummy sharks exhibited greater osmotic perturbation and ionic dysregulation and a larger cellular stress response compared with school sharks. Our findings provide physiological correlates to the observed distribution and movement of these shark species in their critical nursery grounds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".