Sensitivity of Amphibians to Copper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphibian populations are declining globally. Major drivers of these global declines are known. However, the contribution of these major drivers to population declines varies by the presence or absence and the interactive effect of drivers, thus creating local challenges for conservation of populations. Studies have determined that environmental contaminants contribute to amphibian population declines. However, there is a disagreement over the use of amphibians as sentinel species in ecotoxicological testing rather than the traditional taxa used, fish and invertebrates. Reviews of ecotoxicological studies have demonstrated that amphibians are generally less sensitive than fish and invertebrates to different groups of contaminants. Nonetheless, because of the distinct nature and mechanism of toxicity of various contaminants, it is necessary to study contaminants individually to be able to come to any conclusion on the relative sensitivity of amphibians. Copper is one of the most studied environmental contaminants. We conducted a literature review of Cu toxicity to amphibians and the relative sensitivity of amphibians to other aquatic animals. The available data suggest that although amphibians may be tolerant of acute Cu exposure, they are relatively sensitive to chronic exposure (i.e., 100-fold greater sensitivity to chronic compared to acute exposure). In addition, ecologically relevant endpoints specific to amphibians (e.g., duration of metamorphosis and behavior) are shown to provide a better understanding of their sensitivity compared to traditional endpoints (e.g., survival and growth). Our current knowledge on amphibian sensitivity is far from complete. Considering the current status of this globally threatened class of animals, it is necessary to fill the knowledge gaps regarding their sensitivity to individual contaminants, beginning with Cu. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:1810-1821. © 2021 SETAC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".