4.5 Article

Characterizing the hypoxic performance of a fish using a new metric: PAAS-50

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 225, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.244239

关键词

Respirometry; Hypoxia; Maximum oxygen uptake; Aerobic scope; Metabolic rate; Exercise

类别

资金

  1. British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund [BCSRIF-083]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hypoxic constraint on peak oxygen uptake was characterized in rainbow trout using different testing protocols and statistical models. The best-fit model was selected based on statistical criteria and the model's prediction of key hypoxic performance points. A curvilinear model with five strategically selected oxygen tensions was found to best describe the hypoxic performance of rainbow trout, with PAAS-50 as a promising metric for comparing hypoxic constraints across fish species.
The hypoxic constraint on peak oxygen uptake ((M) over dotO(2,peak)) was characterized in rainbow trout over a range of ambient oxygen tensions with different testing protocols and statistical models. The best-fit model was selected using both statistical criteria (R-2 and AIC) and the model's prediction of three anchor points for hypoxic performance: critical P-O2 (P-crit), maximum (M) over dotO(2,peak) and a new metric, the minimum P-O2 that supports 50% of absolute aerobic scope (PAAS-50). The best-fitting model was curvilinear using five strategically selected P-O2 values. This model predicted PAAS-50 as 70 mmHg (coefficient of variation, CV=9%) for rainbow trout. Thus, while a five-point hypoxic performance curve can characterize the limiting effects of hypoxia in fish, as envisaged by Fry over 75 years ago, PAAS-50 is a promising metric to compare hypoxic constraints on performance in a standardized manner both within and across fish species.

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