Effects on litter‐dwelling earthworms and microbial decomposition of soil‐applied imidacloprid for control of wood‐boring insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Imidacloprid is an effective, systemic insecticide for the control of wood-boring insect pests in trees. Systemic applications to trees are often made by soil injections or drenches, and the resulting imidacloprid concentrations in soil or litter may pose a risk of harm to natural decomposer organisms. The authors tested effects of imidacloprid on survival and weight gain or loss of the earthworms Eisenia fetida (Savigny) and Dendrobaena octaedra (Savigny), on leaf consumption rates and cocoon production by D. octaedra and on microbial decomposition activity in laboratory microcosms containing natural forest litter. RESULTS: Dendrobaena octaedra was the most sensitive of the two earthworm species, with an LC(50) of 5.7 mg kg(-1), an LC(10) of about 2 mg kg(-1) and significant weight losses among survivors at 3 mg kg(-1). Weight losses resulted from a physiological effect rather than from feeding inhibition. There were no effects on cocoon production among survivors at 3 mg kg(-1). The LC(50) for E. fetida was 25 mg kg(-1), with significant weight losses at 14 mg kg(-1). There were no significant effects on microbial decomposition of leaf material at the maximum test concentration of 1400 mg kg(-1). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that, when imidacloprid is applied as a systemic insecticide to the soil around trees, it is likely to cause adverse effects on litter-dwelling earthworms if concentrations in the litter reach or exceed about 3 mg kg(-1).
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".