Understanding gas bubble trauma in an era of hydropower expansion: how do fish compensate at depth?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrostatic pressure is known to protect fish from damage by total dissolved gas (TDG) supersaturation, but empirical relationships are lacking. In this study we demonstrate the relationship between depth, TDG, and gas bubble trauma (GBT). Hydroelectric dams generate TDG supersaturation that causes bubble growth in the tissues of aquatic animals, resulting in sublethal and lethal effects. We exposed fish to 100%, 115%, 120%, and 130% TDG at 16 and 63 cm of depth and recorded time to 50% loss of equilibrium and sublethal symptoms. Our linear model of the log-transformed time to 50% LOE (R2 = 0.94) was improved by including depth. Based on our model, a depth of 47 cm compensated for the effects of 4.1% (±1.3% SE) TDG supersaturation. Our experiment reveals that once the surface threshold for GBT from TDG supersaturation is known, depth protects rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from GBT by 9.7% TDG supersaturation per metre depth. Our results can be used to estimate the impacts of TDG on fish downstream of dams and to develop improved guidelines for TDG.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".