Temperature response and salt tolerance of the opportunistic pathogen <i>Saprolegnia parasitica</i>: Implications for the broad whitefish subsistence fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of temperature and salt concentration on growth of the freshwater oomycete Saprolegnia parasitica that has recently (since 2013) been found to infect an important subsistence fish (in Iñupiaq, Aanaakłiq; broad whitefish, Coregonus nasus) on the Colville River in Nuiqsut, Alaska. Using two confirmed isolates (one from the Colville River and another from a southern British Columbia aquaculture facility), we tested the following hypotheses: (1) the isolate from Alaska will grow at a greater rate than the isolate from British Columbia at lower temperatures, (2) the isolate from British Columbia will grow at a greater rate at higher temperatures than the Alaska isolate, and (3) increasing salinity will reduce the growth rate of both isolates similarly at all temperatures. In addition, we used local observations—subsistence fishers and observations associated with scientific monitoring—to assist in interpreting the potential implications of our experimental results in the context of these environmental observations. In the habitat relevant to this study, water temperature ranges between <0°C and 18°C, and salinity ranges between 0 and 30 parts per thousand due to a seasonal (and occasional west wind-driven) saltwater intrusions. No statistically significant differences were detected in growth rate or salt tolerance between the two isolates at the temperatures and salinities tested; high temperature (24°C) and low salt concentration are associated with the highest growth rate for both isolates. From our lab study, one might conclude that the peak host colonization would occur during the seasonal period of warmest water temperature; however, the observations by local fishers and biologists show this not to be the case. We conclude that, at this time, we do not have evidence that peak warm water is the primary cause of an increased incidence of infection by this freshwater mold. Although indirect and lag analysis of temperature and timing of infection were not part of this study, we note that there is a greater role of complex interactions among biotic and abiotic factors (including temperature) that may predispose some individuals in the population to become infected during spawning season.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".