Search

Predicting species responses to climate change is a central challenge in ecology. These predictions are often based on lab-derived phenomenological relationships between temperature and fitness metrics. We tested one of these relationships using the embryonic stage of a Chinook salmon population. We parameterised the model with laboratory data, applied it to predict survival in the field, and found that it significantly underestimated field-derived estimates of thermal mortality. We used a biophysical model based on mass transfer theory to show that the discrepancy was due to the differences in water flow velocities between the lab and the field. This mechanistic approach provides testable predictions for how the thermal tolerance of embryos depends on egg size and flow velocity of the surrounding water. We found support for these predictions across more than 180 fish species, suggesting that flow and temperature mediated oxygen limitation is a general mechanism underlying the thermal tolerance of embryos.

Medical language has implications for both public perception of and institutional responses to illness. A consensus panel of physicians, academics, advocates, and patients with diverse experiences and knowledge about migraine considered 3 questions: (1) What is migraine: an illness, disease, syndrome, condition, disorder, or susceptibility? (2) What ought we call someone with migraine? (3) What should we not call someone with migraine? Although consensus was not reached, the responses were summarized and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Panelists participated in writing and editing the paper. The panelists agreed that "migraine," not "migraine headache," was generally preferable, that migraine met the dictionary definition for each candidate moniker, terms with psychiatric valence should be avoided, and "sufferer" should be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Overall, while there was no consensus, "disease" was the preferred term in the most situations, and illness the least preferred. Panelists disagreed strongly whether one ought to use the term "migraineur" at all or if "person with migraine" was preferable. Panelists drew upon a variety of principles when considering language choices, including the extent to which candidate monikers could be defended using biomedical evidence, the cultural meaning of the proposed term, and the context within which the term would be used. Panelists strove to balance the need for terms to describe the best science on migraine, with the desire to choose language that would emphasize the credibility of migraine. The wide range of symptoms of migraine and its diverse effects may require considerable elasticity of language.