Differences in Cd accumulation among species of the lake-dwelling biomonitor <i>Chaoborus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We measured substantial differences in Cd accumulation among four species of the phantom midge Chaoborus that were exposed in the laboratory to the same Cd concentration in naturally contaminated prey. The two large-bodied species accumulated more Cd than did the two small-bodied species, in spite of the fact that all species ingested prey at the same rate. To determine why this was the case, we fitted our experimental data to a bioaccumulation model that allowed us to compare the species with respect to their rate constants for growth and Cd efflux, their Cd assimilation efficiency, and their Cd concentrations at steady state. Differences among species were explained mainly by the fact that the small-bodied species assimilated a much lower proportion of the Cd that they ingested with prey ([Formula: see text] 6%) than did the large-bodied species (45 and 58%). A comparison between Cd concentrations measured in Chaoborus species in the field and predictions from the model suggests that differences in Cd concentrations among coexisting Chaoborus species in nature are explained by differences both in the rate at which they assimilate Cd and in their feeding habits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".