High‐elevation hypoxia impacts perinatal physiology and performance in a potential montane colonizer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate change is generating range shifts in many organisms, notably along the elevational gradient in mountainous environments. However, moving up in elevation exposes organisms to lower oxygen availability, which may reduce the successful reproduction and development of oviparous organisms. To test this possibility in an upward‐colonizing species, we artificially incubated developing embryos of the viperine snake (Natrix maura) using a split‐clutch design, in conditions of extreme high elevation (hypoxia at 2877 m above sea level; 72% sea‐level equivalent O2availability) or low elevation (control group; i.e. normoxia at 436 m above sea level). Hatching success did not differ between the two treatments. Embryos developing at extreme high elevation had higher heart rates and hatched earlier, resulting in hatchlings that were smaller in body size and slower swimmers compared to their siblings incubated at lower elevation. Furthermore, post‐hatching reciprocal transplant of juveniles showed that snakes which developed at extreme high elevation, when transferred back to low elevation, did not recover full performance compared to their siblings from the low elevation incubation treatment. These results suggest that incubation at extreme high elevation, including the effects of hypoxia, will not prevent oviparous ectotherms from producing viable young, but may pose significant physiological challenges on developing offspringin ovo. These early‐life performance limitations imposed by extreme high elevation could have negative consequences on adult phenotypes, including on fitness‐related traits.
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) | 0.002 | 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".