Acclimation Capacity to Global Warming of Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes: Drivers, Patterns, and Data Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphibians and fishes play a central role in shaping the structure and function of freshwater environments. These organisms have a limited capacity to disperse across different habitats and the thermal buffer offered by freshwater systems is small. Understanding determinants and patterns of their physiological sensitivity across life history is, therefore, imperative to predicting the impacts of climate change in freshwater systems. Based on a systematic literature review including 345 experiments with 998 estimates on 96 amphibian (Anura/Caudata) and 93 freshwater fish species (Teleostei), we conducted a quantitative synthesis to explore phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and biogeographic (thermal adaptation) patterns in upper thermal tolerance (CTmax) and thermal acclimation capacity (Acclimation Response Ratio, ARR) as well as the influence of the methodology used to assess these thermal traits using a conditional inference tree analysis. We found globally consistent patterns in CTmax and ARR, with phylogeny (taxa/order), experimental methodology, climatic origin, and life stage as significant determinants of thermal traits. The analysis demonstrated that CTmax does not primarily depend on the climatic origin but on experimental acclimation temperature and duration, and life stage. Higher acclimation temperatures and longer acclimation times led to higher CTmax values, whereby Anuran larvae revealed a higher CTmax than older life stages. The ARR of freshwater fishes was more than twice that of amphibians. Differences in ARR between life stages were not significant. In addition to phylogenetic differences, we found that ARR also depended on acclimation duration, ramping rate, and adaptation to local temperature variability. However, the amount of data on early life stages is too small, methodologically inconsistent, and phylogenetically unbalanced to identify potential life cycle bottlenecks in thermal traits. We therefore propose methods to improve the robustness and comparability of CTmax/ARR data across species and life stages, which is crucial for the conservation of freshwater biodiversity under climate change.
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 | 0.037 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".