Effects of rearing temperature on the thermal tolerance, metabolic capacity and stress response of cultured lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) mortalities have been reported during the summer at some North Atlantic salmon cage-sites where they serve as ‘cleaner fish’. To understand their physiology, and whether limitations in their metabolic capacity and thermal tolerance can explain this phenomenon, I compared the aerobic scope (AS) of 6°C-acclimated lumpfish using a critical swim speed (Ucᵣᵢₜ) test, a critical thermal maximum (CTₘₐₓ) test (rate of warming 2°C h⁻¹) and a chase to exhaustion. The Ucᵣᵢₜ and CTₘₐₓ of 45-75g lumpfish were 2.36 ± 0.08 body lengths s⁻1 and 20.6 ± 0.3°C, respectively. The AS of lumpfish was higher during the Ucᵣᵢₜ test (206.4 ± 8.5 mg O₂ kg⁻¹ h⁻¹) vs. that measured in either the CTₘₐₓ test or after the chase (141.0 + 15.0 and 124.7 ± 15.5 mg O₂ kg⁻¹ h⁻¹). Next, I examined whether changing temperatures during incubation/rearing influenced the lumpfish’s AS, CTₘₐₓ and ITₘₐₓ (incremental thermal maximum, measured by warming at 0.1-0.2°C day⁻¹), and stress physiology. Temperature combinations included 6°C/9°C (that used in standard production protocols), 8.5°C/9°C, 6-11°C/9°C, 8.5°C/9-11°C and 6-11°C/9- 11°C, with ranges indicating stochastic changes. The lumpfish’s upper thermal tolerance (CTₘₐₓ, 22.85 ± 0.12°C; ITₘₐₓ, 20.63°C) and AS were not influenced by incubation or rearing temperatures, and based on these values it does not appear that cage-site mortalities during the summer are related to high water temperatures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".