Emersion behaviour underlies variation in gill morphology and aquatic respiratory function in the amphibious fish <i>Kryptolebias marmoratus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fishes acclimated to hypoxic environments often increase gill surface area to improve O2 uptake. In some species, surface area is increased via reduction of an interlamellar cell mass (ILCM) that fills water channels between gill lamellae. Amphibious fishes, however, may not increase gill surface area in hypoxic water because these species can instead leave water and breathe air. To differentiate between these possibilities, we compared wild amphibious mangrove rivulus Kryptolebias marmoratus from two habitats that varied in O2 availability – a hypoxic freshwater pool versus nearly anoxic crab burrows. Fish captured from crab burrows had less gill surface area, as ILCMs were enlarged by ∼32%, increased rates of normoxic O2 consumption, and increased critical O2 tension compared to fish from the freshwater pool. Thus, wild mangrove rivulus do not respond to near-anoxic water by decreasing metabolism or increasing O2 extraction. Instead, fish from the crab burrow habitat spent 3-fold more time out of water, which probably caused the observed changes in gill morphology and respiratory phenotype. We also tested whether critical O2 tension is influenced by genetic heterozygosity, as K. marmoratus is one of only two hermaphroditic vertebrate species that can produce both self-fertilized (inbred) or out-crossed (more heterozygous) offspring. We found no evidence for inbreeding depression, suggesting that self-fertilization does not impair respiratory function. Overall, our results demonstrate that amphibious fishes that inhabit hypoxic aquatic habitats can use a fundamentally different strategy than fully aquatic water-breathing fishes, relying on escape behaviour rather than metabolic depression or increased O2 extraction ability.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".