MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084283069 · doi:10.1139/er-2020-0031

Discrimination between freshwater and marine fish using fatty acids: ecological implications and future perspectives

2020· article· en· W3084283069 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Camilla Parzanini, Stefanie M. Colombo, Martin J. Kainz, Alexander Wacker, Christopher C. Parrish, Michael T. Arts

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsOceans Limited (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrophic levelBiologyFreshwater fishEcologyMarine ecosystemFreshwater ecosystemZooplanktonEicosapentaenoic acidMarine habitatsHabitatFatty acidEcosystemPolyunsaturated fatty acidFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Biochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fatty acids (FA) are a major source of nutrients and energy in aquatic food webs, as well as serving as the main components of all cell membranes. Increasing anthropogenic impacts (e.g., climate change) are predicted to selectively alter the production of these critical compounds, with potential cascading effects reaching higher trophic level organisms, including humans. To provide a more comprehensive assessment of these potential effects, we synthesized and systematically explored differences in the abundance and distribution of FA in fish, due to their pivotal role in aquatic ecosystems and value to humans. An extensive data set consisting of 1382 fish FA profiles was analyzed to identify the main differences in FA composition of freshwater vs. marine fish, taking into account the effects of taxonomic, geographic (i.e., latitude zone), and functional (i.e., feeding mode) factors. Freshwater fish had relatively high contents of 18:2n-6 (linoleic acid, LNA) and 20:4n-6 (arachidonic acid, ARA) indicative of freshwater algae and terrestrial dietary sources. In contrast, 20:1n-9 and 22:1n-11, well known as marine zooplankton biomarkers, typified the FA composition of marine fish. Using this result, we constructed a new metric (i.e., a specific C 18 –C 22 unsaturated FA ratio) that we propose can assist in characterizing the feeding habitat (freshwater vs. marine) and, to some extent, the diet of fish. Our analysis also revealed that carnivores from high latitudes had higher contents of 20:5n-3 (eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA) and 22:6n-3 (docosahexaenoic acid, DHA), thus making them an excellent source of essential FA for human consumption. In parallel, unsaturated FA contents were higher overall at temperate and polar latitudes than in the tropics. The latter two trends may be driven by water temperature variation across latitudes, which is known to affect FA composition of cell membranes in ectotherms. Last, a strong retention of DHA was observed in both freshwater and marine fish. We conclude that our discrimination between freshwater and marine fish provides a quantitative tool that is applicable to a broad range of research and conservation initiatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207