Testing the functional redundancy of <i>Limnodrilus</i> and <i>Tubifex</i> (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae) in hyporheic sediments: an experimental study in microcosms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most tubificid worms are classified in the same functional group by their similar bioturbation and feeding activities in fine sediments of lakes. The objective of this study was to test the functional redundancy of two genera of tubificids (Limnodrilus and Tubifex) at two densities in coarse sediments using slow filtration columns. We measured the effects of the worms on particle redistribution, organic matter processing, nutrient fluxes, and microbial characteristics. The results showed that Limnodrilus and Tubifex created the same stimulation of aerobic and anaerobic microbial activities in the sediment. However, 50 Tubifex had a greater effect than 50 Limnodrilus on microbial processes. Furthermore, at a density of 100 oligochaetes per column, only Tubifex significantly increased particle redistribution and oxygen consumption in the first centimetre of the sediment. In contrast, Limnodrilus more often modified microbial activity in the deeper layers of the columns. The functional redundancy of the two genera of tubificid worms was validated by most measured processes. However, the variability within functional groups cannot be neglected because each genus had its functional peculiarity in the ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".