Chemically-dispersed crude oil and dispersant affects sperm fertilizing ability, but not sperm swimming behaviour in capelin (Mallotus villosus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of petroleum aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on the embryonic and larval life stages of teleosts have been extensively examined. However, very little work has been conducted on how spilled oil affects fish sperm and there is no related knowledge concerning oil dispersing agents. The objective of our study was to determine sperm performance of a teleost fish under direct exposure to different concentrations of WAF (water accommodated fraction) and CEWAF (chemically enhanced water accommodated fraction). Capelin sperm motility, swimming behaviour, and sperm fertilization ability were evaluated in a scenario of an oil spill untreated (WAF) and treated (CEWAF) with the dispersant Corexit® EC9500A. Sperm fertilizing ability was lower when exposed to CEWAF concentrations of 16.1 × 103 μg/L total petroleum hydrocarbons and 47.9 μg/L PAH, and when exposed to the dispersant alone. The mechanism responsible for this reduced fertilizing ability is not clear. However, it is not related to the percentage of motile sperm or sperm swimming behaviour, as these were unaffected. WAF did not alter sperm swimming characteristics nor the fertilizing ability. We suggest the dispersant rather than the dispersed oil is responsible for the decrease in the sperm fertilizing ability and hypothesize that the surfactants present in the dispersant affect sperm membrane functionality.
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".