Physiology and aquaculture: A review of ion and acid‐base regulation by the gills of fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fish aquaculture facilities strive to maintain abiotic conditions that optimise somatic growth. Two physiological systems that are critically linked to environmental abiotic factors are ion and acid‐base regulation. Given the detrimental effects of ionic and acid‐base imbalances coupled with the potential energetic costs of ion and acid‐base regulation, it is important to understand how changes in abiotic variables such as salinity, temperature and pH alter ionoregulatory and acid‐base physiology. The gill is the predominant site of ion and acid‐base regulation, two linked processes that are vital to the health of fishes. Most species maintain ion levels in the blood plasma within a narrow range, independent of external ion concentrations. In freshwater (FW), fishes must actively take up ions from their dilute environment to counteract passive ion losses, while in seawater (SW), ion excretion serves to counteract passive salt gain. Ion uptake (FW) and excretion (SW) are coordinated by different subtypes of ion‐transporting cells (ionocytes) expressed in the gill epithelium. In this review, we discuss the function of FW and SW ionocytes in the movement of ions across the gill epithelium and address other features of the gill that are integral to ionoregulation. We also discuss the mechanisms of acid‐base regulation by the gill, which is intimately related to ion regulation because it is coordinated by Na+‐ and Cl−‐linked fluxes of acid (H+) and base () equivalents. These fundamental physiological principles are integral in understanding how fishes in aquaculture respond to relevant disturbances that may occur under culture conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".