The effect of temperature on appetite in fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temperature has a dramatic effect on the physiology of ectothermic animals, impacting most of their biology. When temperatures increase above optimal for an animal, their growth gradually decreases. The main mechanism behind this growth rate reduction is unknown. Here, we suggest the ‘aerobic scope protection’ hypothesis as a mechanistic explanation for the reduction in growth. After a meal, metabolic rate, and hence oxygen consumption rate, transiently increases in a process called specific dynamic action (SDA). At warmer temperatures, the SDA response usually becomes temporally compressed, leading to a higher peak oxygen consumption rate. This peak in oxygen consumption rate risks taking up much of the animal’s aerobic scope (the difference between resting and maximum rates of oxygen consumption), which would leave little residual aerobic scope for other aerobic functions. We propose that water-breathing ectothermic animals will protect their postprandial residual aerobic scope by reducing meal sizes in order to regulate the peak SDA response during times of warming, leading to reductions in growth. This hypothesis is consistent with the published literature on fishes, and we suggest predictions to test it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.012 |
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".