The relationship between thermal physiology and lampricide sensitivity in larval sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensitivity of larval sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) to the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) varies with season, with highest sensitivity in spring and tolerance increasing by 2- to 3-fold in the mid-late summer. Until recently, the physiological basis for these differences was unresolved. Using previously published and unpublished findings, we illustrate how the acute toxicity of TFM (12-h LC50, 12-h LC99.9) changes with season in two populations of larval sea lamprey collected through the spring, summer and fall from Deer Creek and the Au Sable River, Michigan, U.S.A. Our findings reveal that the greater TFM tolerance of larval sea lamprey in the summer is most closely related to increases in water temperature. Although the energy reserves (glycogen, lipid) and body condition of larval sea lamprey may be lower in the spring after overwintering, these physiological indices have little impact on TFM sensitivity. We therefore conclude that water temperature, rather than energy stores or body condition, explains the greater tolerance of sea lamprey to TFM in the summer. We propose that as water temperature increases through the spring and summer, and approaches the thermal optima of larval sea lamprey, their metabolic rate and capacity to detoxify TFM increases, which slows the rate at which TFM accumulates in the body, despite concurrent increases in TFM uptake rate. We therefore recommend that water temperature be considered when planning and executing lampricide applications to mitigate temperature-induced increases in sea lamprey tolerance to TFM that could undermine sea lamprey control efforts in the Great Lakes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".