Ecological performance of pet-store goldfish (Carassius auratus) under elevated temperature and chloride levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic stressors can affect the invasion success and impact of introduced fishes in freshwater ecosystems. Predicting the performance of species subjected to multiple stressors is needed to assess ecosystem vulnerabilities and prioritize species likely to be disruptive. This thesis explores how the ecological performance of cultivated pet store goldfish (Carassius auratus) is affected by exposure to climate warming and chloride pollution via road salt application—two stressors that are increasingly significant in north temperate urban ponds. The goldfish, native to China, is a global invader that is reportedly increasing its distribution and abundance in ponds, lakes and wetlands in Canada, most notably in the Great Lakes basin. A review of published studies indicates that goldfish have a broad environmental tolerance across life stages that is enhanced through acclimation; however, data on tolerance to multiple co-occurring stressors are lacking, which can impede predictive risk assessment. To understand resource consumption dynamics and thermal tolerance of cultivated goldfish under climate warming scenarios and chloride pollution, I used a series of experiments to measure functional response and critical thermal maxima of fish obtained from a pet supplier. The fish were acclimated to a combination of temperature and chloride regimes that reflect current and projected summer temperatures in the Great Lakes basin as well as current chloride levels in Canadian urban ponds. I tested predictions that superior foraging abilities and thermal tolerance would increase with acclimation to temperatures and chloride levels that closely match the species’ reported growth optimum (the Environmental Matching Hypothesis). As predicted, resource consumption and CTmax increased with acclimation to higher temperatures that overlap with their reported optimum. Contrary to prediction, results varied with different temperature-chloride combinations. Overall, my findings suggest that invasive species risk assessments should be informed by incorporating multiple context dependencies at ecologically relevant thresholds
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".