MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412658816 · doi:10.1093/etojnl/vgaf192

Are standard test species still relevant? A comprehensive assessment of <i>Daphnia pulex</i> reared in laboratory and wild environments and their responses to organic ultraviolet filters

2025· article· en· W4412658816 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron Boyd, Connor B. Stewart, Jenelle D. McCuaig, Sidney Martin, D. R. Doty, Carys L. Mitchelmore, Tamzin A. Blewett

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDaphnia pulexPulexDaphniaDaphnia magnaBiologyEcotoxicologyCladoceraBranchiopodaToxicologyPopulationReproductionZoologyEcologyToxicityCrustaceanChemistryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment of laboratory-based species has facilitated the standardization of biological research methods; however, the stable culturing conditions of laboratories are dissimilar to the dynamic conditions of natural environments, potentially influencing fundamentally different research outcomes between laboratory and wild populations. This study sought to compare the toxicity of ultraviolet filters (UVFs) avobenzone, octocrylene, and oxybenzone to laboratory and wild populations of Daphnia pulex, while also testing the effects of culturing both populations in either laboratory or lake water in 48 hr and 21 day toxicity tests. Both daphnid populations demonstrated poor performance when cultured in nonancestral waters for three generations (i.e., laboratory Daphnia in lake water or wild Daphnia in laboratory water), including 25% decreased reproduction in control treatments and ≥ 50% mortality to most UVF treatments. Toxicity varied in each population cultured in ancestral waters; laboratory D. pulex were more sensitive to 30.7 μg/L of avobenzone and 18.8 μg/L of oxybenzone (> 25% greater mortality, ≥ 20% decreased reproduction vs. wild daphnids), whereas wild D. pulex were more sensitive to 25.6 μg/L of octocrylene (30% decreased mortality, 44% decreased reproduction vs. laboratory daphnids). These results demonstrate that Daphnia populations can deviate after decades of isolation, highlighting the challenges of relating laboratory-generated data to field results. In addition, culture water greatly affected daphnid performance during experimentation, potentially leading to misinterpreted results when studying wild organisms. This research highlights the importance of understanding how laboratory and wild organisms can differ, so that research modeling environmental outcomes can be applied in an appropriate context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry→Same topicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology→French-language works237,207→