Is it justifiable to pool <i>Chironomus</i> species in trace element contamination studies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Larvae of the insect Chironomus (Chironomidae: Diptera) have great potential for estimating the bioavailability of sedimentary trace elements because they are common in fine sediments and tolerate high concentrations of these contaminants. Their use as biomonitors is limited by the fact that they are difficult to identify as to species, and the species can differ in their trace element concentrations. To determine whether pooling species would compromise their use as trace element biomonitors, we identified species of Chironomus larvae collected from 22 lakes and measured their concentrations of 9 trace elements. We found that the concentrations of arsenic, barium, cobalt, copper, manganese, and nickel did not generally differ between sympatric Chironomus species, which indicates that they could be pooled for analyses of these trace elements. In contrast, we found that cadmium (Cd), selenium (Se), and zinc (Zn) concentrations differed between species living at the same site according to their feeding behavior, that is, Chironomus species feeding on oxic sediments tended to have higher Cd and Zn concentrations, whereas those feeding on deeper anoxic sediments had higher Se concentrations. Because Se and Zn concentrations in sympatric Chironomus species usually differed by only a factor of 2, separating species based on their feeding behavior might not be as crucial as for Cd if larval Se and Zn concentrations vary greatly from site to site. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:145-159. © 2018 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 | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".