Cadmium accumulation by invertebrates living at the sediment–water interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benthic animals can take up trace metals both from the sediment compartment in which they burrow and from the water column compartment above their burrows (we define both compartments as containing water and particles). If criteria for the protection of benthic animals are based on metal concentrations in one of these two compartments, then it should first be demonstrated that the majority of the metal taken up by these animals comes from the given compartment. To determine whether benthic animals take up the majority of their cadmium (Cd) from the sediment compartment, we created a Cd gradient in lake sediment and compared Cd accumulation by the invertebrates colonizing these sediments with Cd concentrations in the sediment compartment. On the basis of this relationship and using a bioaccumulation model, we estimate that indigenous benthic invertebrates take up the majority of their Cd from the water column compartment. The results of our experiment are similar to those from a previous study conducted on a different benthic community in a larger lake. Taxa common to both lakes obtained similar proportions of their Cd from the water column compartment, suggesting that Cd accumulation by the same species will be constant across lakes of differing size and chemistry. Our results strengthen the argument that the protection of benthic communities from metal pollution should consider metal in both the water column and sediment compartments. In this regard, the AVS model, which considers only sedimentary metals, was more effective in predicting Cd concentrations in pore waters than those in most animal taxa. We suggest that measurements of vertical chemical heterogeneity in sediments and of animal behavior would aid in predicting the bioaccumulation and effects of sedimentary pollutants.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".