Temperatures leading to heat escape responses in Antarctic marine ectotherms match acute thermal limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal tolerance windows are key indicators of the range of temperatures tolerated by animals and therefore, a measure of resilience to climate change. In the ocean, where ectotherms are immersed, body temperatures are tightly coupled to environmental temperature and species have few options for thermoregulation. However, mobile species do have the ability to orientate towards optimal temperatures and move away from sub-optimal or dangerous temperatures. Escape responses are one such locomotory behavior, which typically manifests as a series of violent flicking movements that move individuals out of dangerous environments. We tested 11 species of Antarctic marine ectotherms, from one of the most stable shallow water marine environments, with an annual temperature range of −2°C to +2°C, that are vulnerable to small degrees of warming. Three species, the clamLaternula elliptica, the sea cucumberCucumaria georgiana, and the brittlestarOphionotus victoriae, showed no, or virtually no, escape response to temperature. Escape responses from a further eight species had a median response temperature of 11.2 (interquartile range, 10°C–15.7°C), which is well above current environmental temperatures but close to the range for acute lethal limits of Antarctic marine ectotherms (CTmaxrange, 17.2°C–26.6°C). This highlights that both acute tolerance limits and escape responses, fall outside current environmental temperatures, but also those predicted for 100s of years in the Southern Ocean. In a warmer Southern Ocean Antarctic fauna may not have the capacity to use temperature to select optimal thermal conditions, which leaves adaptation as a primary mechanism for their persistence.
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) | 0.000 | 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".