4.5 Article

Oxygen delivery does not limit thermal tolerance in a tropical eurythermal crustacean

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 217, 期 5, 页码 809-814

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.094169

关键词

Critical temperature; Crustacean; Growth rate; Macrobrachium rosenbergii; Oxygen supply capacity; Temperature

类别

资金

  1. Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, as well as The Danish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In aquatic environments, rising water temperatures reduce water oxygen content while increasing oxygen demand, leading several authors to propose cardiorespiratory oxygen transport capacity as the main determinant of aquatic animal fitness. It has also been argued that tropical species, compared with temperate species, live very close to their upper thermal limit and hence are vulnerable to even small elevations in temperature. Little, however, is known about physiological responses to high temperatures in tropical species. Here we report that the tropical giant freshwater shrimp (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) maintains normal growth when challenged by a temperature rise of 6 degrees C above the present day average (from 27 degrees C to 33 degrees C). Further, by measuring heart rate, gill ventilation rate, resting and maximum oxygen uptake, and hemolymph lactate, we show that oxygen transport capacity is maintained up to the critical maximum temperature around 41 degrees C. In M. rosenbergii heart rate and gill ventilation rate increases exponentially until immediately below critical temperatures and at 38 degrees C animals still retained more than 76% of aerobic scope measured at 30 degrees C, and there was no indication of anaerobic metabolism at the high temperatures. Our study shows that the oxygen transport capacity is maintained at high temperatures, and that other mechanisms, such as protein dysfunction, are responsible for the loss of ecological performance at elevated temperatures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据