Nontarget effects of ivermectin residues on earthworms and springtails dwelling beneath dung of treated cattle in four countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authorization of veterinary medicinal products requires that they be assessed for nontarget effects in the environment. Numerous field studies have assessed these effects on dung organisms. However, few studies have examined effects on soil-dwelling organisms, which might be exposed to veterinary medicinal product residues released during dung degradation. The authors compared the abundance of earthworms and springtails in soil beneath dung from untreated cattle and from cattle treated 0 d, 3 d, 7 d, 14 d, and 28 d previously with ivermectin. Study sites were located in different ecoregions in Switzerland (Continental), The Netherlands (Atlantic), France (Mediterranean), and Canada (Northern Mixed Grassland). Samples were collected using standard methods from 1 mo to 12 mo after pat deposition. Ivermectin concentrations in soil beneath dung pats ranged from 0.02 mg/kg dry weight (3 mo) to typically <0.006 mg/kg dry weight (5-7 mo). Earthworms were abundant and species-rich at the Swiss and Dutch sites, less common with fewer species at the French site, and essentially absent at the Canadian site. Diverse but highly variable communities of springtails were present at all sites. Overall, results showed little effect of residues on either earthworms or springtails. The authors recommend that inclusion of soil organisms in field studies to assess the nontarget effects of veterinary medicinal products be required only if earthworms or springtails exhibit sensitivity to the product in laboratory tests. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:1959-1969. © 2015 SETAC.
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".