Can avoidance behavior of the mite <i>Oppia nitens</i> be used as a rapid toxicity test for soils contaminated with metals or organic chemicals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survival and reproduction soil toxicity tests for a new mite test species, Oppia nitens, have recently been developed for boreal ecosystems; however, the tests require 28 to 35 d. Avoidance tests have the potential to allow for rapid preliminary screening assessments of soils. The objective of this investigation was to determine the relevance of the avoidance test with the oribatid mite O. nitens as a short screening test in lower-tier environmental risk assessment. We assessed the effects of soil properties and chemicals on O. nitens avoidance behavior as well as the minimum time required to obtain a significant avoidance response from the mite. Specimens of this mite were exposed in Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) artificial soils that had been adjusted to achieve varying soil properties as well as to a range of concentrations of the following contaminants: Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, phenanthrene, benzo[a]pyrene, geraniol, and boric acid over 1, 2, or 5 d. The results were then compared with those of parallel life-cycle toxicity studies. The results showed that 24 h was adequate to obtain a significant response of the mites and that the soil properties tested (moisture, pH, organic matter, and clay content) had little influence on mite avoidance. The median effective concentration (EC50) for avoidance response was lower than or in the same range as the reproduction EC50 values for the organic compounds (phenanthrene and geraniol) and metals (Cu and Zn) or the median lethal concentration (LC50) values for Pb. The 24-h mite avoidance test is a suitable screening method across a range of soil properties and chemicals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".