Oxygen measurements in the burrows of freshwater insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Thin‐tipped micro‐electrodes were used to measure oxygen concentrations in the burrows of two common aquatic insects, the mayfly Hexagenia limbata and the alderfly Sialis velata. Both species maintain their surroundings oxygenated by drawing water from above the sediment surface into their tubes. 2. The temporal pattern of oxygen in the burrows differed between the species. The constant high oxygen concentration (>75% of air saturation) measured in the tubes of the mayfly suggest that this animal pumps water almost continuously, which is consistent with its high oxygen requirements. In contrast, oxygen concentration in burrows of the alderfly fluctuated widely over time, suggesting that this animal irrigates only irregularly, probably because it can tolerate short periods of low oxygen concentration in its burrow. 3. The interval between pumping episodes by the alderfly decreased with increasing temperature, a result of increased oxygen consumption by the animal and by sediment at high temperature. 4. Based on the tube dimensions, oxygen penetration depth and animal density in lakes, we estimate that Hexagenia could create an oxic micro‐environment equivalent to 3–35% of the volume of the surface oxidized sediment layer created by molecular diffusion. The mosaic of oxic micro‐environments created by the burrowing and irrigation of freshwater animals could influence chemical and biological processes in sediments, the fluxes of materials between the sediment and the overlying water column, and the exposure of benthic animals to sedimentary contaminants.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".