MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3196449111 · doi:10.1242/jeb.236968

Hot shark embryos freeze less to stay safe

2021· article· en· W3196449111 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Murillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScyliorhinus caniculaPredationBiologyZoologyFisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Have you ever seen a scary movie where the murderer is stalking a potential victim, and then it cuts to a close-up of their prey frozen still, holding their breath for dear life? Believe it or not, shark embryos have a remarkably similar freeze response when predators are nearby. Small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) embryos develop for 21 weeks in egg cases called mermaid's purses. After the 10th week, these shark embryos produce secretions that open slits into the egg case, and for the remainder of their development, the tiny sharks have to move to exchange seawater to ensure enough oxygen is available to continue their development. However, these movements attract shark predators. Fortunately, the youngsters are able to detect the presence of the threat and stop moving and breathing – a behavior known as the freeze response – although they are only able to do so for a limited amount of time as they have to resume respiration and moving once again. As shark embryos are particularly vulnerable to predation, any factor that affects the freeze response is a risk for shark populations in the wild. As temperatures are expected to increase and affect the metabolic rate of marine animals, Daniel Ripley and researchers from the University of Manchester, UK, investigated the effect of increasing temperatures on the freeze response of small-spotted catshark youngsters.First, the team transported ∼3-week-old small-spotted catshark embryos from Germany to the UK and placed the developing youngsters in either 15 or 20°C water until they were 15 weeks old. Then, the researchers took the shark embryos and gently flicked them underwater, to imitate a predator inspecting an egg case, while measuring how long the youngsters froze and the amount of oxygen that they consumed at their respective temperatures. Finally, the team measured how fast the embryos fanned their gills to inhale oxygen at the different temperatures.Despite the difference in the embryos’ temperatures, the team did not find a difference in youngsters’ resting metabolic rates. However, they did discover that the embryos fan their gills faster at 20°C than at 15°C. Additionally, as the resting metabolic rate or incubation temperature of embryos increased, the duration of their freezing response decreased. This means that the length of time that the embryos hold themselves still does not depend solely on their metabolic rate. Most alarmingly, the researchers also found that the warmest embryos only froze for a seventh of the time that the cooler embryos remained stock still. This decrease in the length of the freeze response has significant implications as temperatures increase as a result of climate change. The freeze response is a behavior that helps embryos avoid predators and improves their chances of survival, but small-spotted catshark embryos will likely be at increasing risk from passing predators as temperatures rise and this response declines.For these shark embryos, the duration of this freeze response can be the difference between life and death. The research team also advises that predator avoidance behavior is another factor that needs to be taken into account when thinking about the conservation of sharks and the impact of rising temperatures owing to climate change.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicIchthyology and Marine Biology→French-language works237,207→