Surviving in anoxic surroundings: how burrowing aquatic insects create an oxic microhabitat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used an infrared video system and O2 microelectrodes to record the behavior of 2 widespread burrowing insects, the predatory alderfly Sialis velata and the sediment-feeding mayfly Hexagenia limbata, to determine how they survive in anoxic sediment. Analysis of video recordings showed that both taxa have several common behaviors, including crawling, pushing sediment, turning around, and brushing their legs over their bodies for the purpose of cleaning. In contrast, these taxa differ in how they draw overlying oxic water into their burrows, i.e., H. limbata beats its abdominal gills, whereas S. velata undulates its abdomen. Feeding frequency also differs between the 2 taxa, i.e., the mayfly feeds frequently on sediment within its burrows, whereas S. velata feeds infrequently. Hexagenia limbata nymphs were rarely inactive (<1% of the time) and irrigated their burrows by gill-beating ¾ of the time, whereas S. velata nymphs were usually inactive (60% of the time). By vigorous irrigation of its burrow, H. limbata maintained its surroundings well oxygenated, whereas O2 concentrations fluctuated more widely in burrows of the less-active S. velata. This behavioral difference between the species is consistent with their reported sensitivities to the low O2 concentrations associated with eutrophication; in such situations, H. limbata is likely to be eliminated, whereas S. velata can persist. We estimate that O2 lost from water passing through an H. limbata burrow is taken up mainly by the insect rather than diffusing into the surrounding sediment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".