No evidence for collateral effects of electromagnetic fields used to increase dissolved oxygen levels on the behavior and physiology of freshwater fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypoxia in surface waters driven by warming climate and other anthropogenic stressors is a major conservation concern, and technological solutions for water quality remediation are sorely needed. One potential solution involves the use of low-intensity electromagnetic fields (EMFs) to increase dissolved oxygen levels, but potential collateral effects of the EMFs on aquatic animals have not been formally evaluated. We examined the effects of EMF exposure on wild-caught, captive sunfish (Lepomis spp.) over 8-day and 3-day exposures, with and without aeration in mesocosms and stock tanks (respectively). We also quantified ambient fish abundance in close proximity to EMF devices deployed in Opinicon Lake (ON). We found no significant differences in a suite of blood-based stress physiology biomarkers, behaviors, and putative aerobic capacities between EMF and control conditions over 8 days. Aerated mesocosms equipped with activated EMFs consistently had higher oxygen levels in the water than aerated controls. There were no differences in mortality during 3-day oxygen depletion trials under EMF or control conditions, and we detected no differences in fish abundance when the devices were activated in the lake. Our findings suggest that deploying EMF devices in field settings is not likely to exert negative effects on exposed fish populations. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Low-cost, low-energy technological solutions to remediate aquatic hypoxia are sorely needed Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can increase oxygen flux across air/water interfaces and increase dissolved oxygen levels We found no evidence of negative effects of EMFs on fish physiology or behavior and our results support their use in alleviating hypoxic 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".