Differences in feeding behaviour among<i><scp>C</scp>hironomus</i>species revealed by measurements of sulphur stable isotopes and cadmium in larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We set out to determine the feeding behaviours of 15Chironomusspecies collected from 16 boreal forest lakes by measuring cadmium (Cd) and stable isotopes of carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and sulphur (S) in larvae. Measurements of S stable isotopes and Cd discriminated betweenChironomusspecies that feed mainly on oxic particles from those that feed mainly on anoxic particles. Our results suggest thatC. dilutus,C. entis,C. plumosusandC. staegerifeed mainly on oxic particles (in the water column, in sediment or both), whereasC. anthracinus,C. bifurcatus,C. cucini,C. decorus‐group sp. 2,C. harpi,C. nr. atroviridis(sp. 2i),C. ochreatus,C. spp.NAI‐NAIIIandC. ‘tigris’feed mainly on anoxic sediments. In our study lakes, larval C isotopic signatures were relatively high, which suggests that they feed little on methanotrophic bacteria. Although larval C and N signatures differed between some sympatricChironomusspecies, these differences were not consistent among lakes. The absence of a trend among lakes suggests that lake‐specific factors determine larval C and N signatures. Differences in feeding habits and Cd concentrations among sympatric (cohabiting)Chironomusspecies suggest that pooling them in ecological, palaeolimnological or ecotoxicological studies could obscure trends in nature, thereby limiting their use as monitors of climate change or pollution.
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 | 0.001 | 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".