Animal-sediment interactions: the effect of ingestion and excretion by worms on mineralogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. By controlled experiments that simulate marine depositional environments, it is shown that accelerated weathering and clay mineral authigenesis occur during the combined process of ingestion, digestion and excretion of fine-grained sediment by two species of annelid worms. Previously characterized synthetic mud was created using finely ground, low-grade metamorphic slate (temperature approximately 300°C) containing highly crystalline chlorite and muscovite. This was added to experiment and control tanks along with clean, wind-blown sand. Faecal casts were collected at regular intervals from the experimental tanks and, less frequently, from the control tanks. Over a period of many months the synthetic mud (slate) proved to be unchanged in the control tanks, but was significantly different in faecal casts from the experimental tanks that contained the worms Arenicola marina and Lumbricus terrestris. Chlorite was preferentially destroyed during digestion in the gut of A. marina. Both chlorite and muscovite underwent XRD peak broadening with a skew developing towards higher lattice spacing, characteristic of smectite formation. A neoformed Fe-Mg-rich clay mineral (possibly berthierine) and as-yet undefined clay minerals with very high d-spacing were detected in both A. marina and L. terrestris cast samples. We postulate that a combination of the low pH and bacteria-rich microenvironment in the guts of annelid worms may radically accelerate mineral dissolution and clay mineral precipitation processes during digestion. These results show that macrobiotic activity significantly accelerates weathering and mineral degradation as well as mineral authigenesis. The combined processes of sediment ingestion and digestion thus lead to early diagenetic growth of clay minerals in clastic sediments.
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".