Predacious activity of <i>Duddingtonia flagrans</i> within the cattle faecal pat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to investigate the growth and activity of the fungus, Duddingtonia flagrans, within cattle faecal pats. Artificial faecal pats were constructed with the centre separated from the outer layer by a nylon mesh. Eight treatments were tested, by varying the presence/absence of Cooperia oncophora eggs and fungal spores within each layer. With parasite eggs in the centre layer, a statistically lower recovery of larvae was observed compared to both pats with parasite eggs in the periphery and pats with parasite eggs throughout both layers. Regardless of location within the pat, if co-located with the parasite egg, D. flagrans was found to be effective in trapping developing larvae. The reduction in recovery of larvae from pats with parasite eggs and fungal spores in the centre was found to be significantly higher than when parasite eggs were in the centre and fungal spores in the periphery. In the second study, pats were made up in two treatments: pats containing fungal spores and C. oncophora eggs (fungus) and pats containing C. oncophora eggs (control). The pats were incubated at low or high humidity. Ten pats were used in a cross over where five pats incubated at low humidity for 7 weeks were removed, water added and then incubated at a high humidity for 1 week. Another five pats were incubated at a high humidity for 7 weeks, aerated and incubated at a low humidity for 1 week. There was no apparent growth of fungus in faecal pats incubated at a high humidity and less than 20% of larvae were recovered. The growth of D. flagrans was observed in faecal pats incubated at a low humidity, but a corresponding reduction in the percentage recovery of larvae did not occur, except in week 4. No statistical difference between fungal and control pats was seen in the change over pats. Nematophagous activity was assessed throughout the study and observed in the first 4 weeks within the pats containing fungus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".