Digging energetics in the South American rodent <i>Ctenomys talarum</i> (Rodentia, Ctenomyidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ctenomys is the most speciose among subterranean rodents. There are few studies on energetics of Ctenomys, and none of them have focused on the energetics of digging. The present study aims to quantify the energetic cost of burrowing in Ctenomys talarum in natural soil conditions and to compare the energetics data with those reported for other subterranean rodents. Digging metabolic rate (DMR) in gravelly sand for C. talarum was 337.4 ± 65.9 mL O2·h1 (mean ± SD). No differences in DMR were detected between sexes. Moreover, DMR was 295.9% of resting metabolic rate. In terms of a cost of burrowing model, the mass of soil removed per distance burrowed (Msoil) in gravelly sand was 44.5 ± 6.7 g·cm1. Coefficients of the equation that related the energy cost of constructing a burrow segment of length S and Msoil(Eseg/Msoil) were Ks = 0.33 ± 0.32 J·g1, which is the energy cost of shearing 1 g of soil, and Kp = 0.0055 ± 0.0042 J·g1·cm1, which is the energy cost of pushing 1 g of soil 100 cm. Regarding the cost of burrowing model, our data showed that C. talarum has the lowest DMR in gravelly sand among unrelated subterranean rodents analyzed. Moreover, despite C. talarum feeding aboveground, the foraging economics was similar that of to other rodents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".