Ivermectin residues in cattle dung impair insect‐mediated dung removal but not organic matter decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Veterinary parasiticide residues in livestock dung have been repeatedly shown to negatively affect the abundance and diversity of dung‐associated insects. While these losses are concerning from a conservation perspective, they can also translate to impairment of ecosystem functions in agricultural landscapes (e.g. nutrient cycling, primary productivity and greenhouse gas mitigation). 2. Most research focusing on decomposition‐related ecosystem functioning has focused on dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) while other insects, particularly flies, have received comparatively less attention. 3. Using mesocosms, this study manipulated the insect groups colonising cow dung (beetles only, flies only, beetles and flies together, and an insect‐free control). Half of the insects were exposed to 1 mg kg −1 ivermectin in dung, while the other half were exposed to ivermectin‐free dung. Dung decomposition (mass of organic matter lost) and dung removal (change in the dry mass of the dung pat attributed to both dung decomposition and burial) were measured. 4. Comparison of beetles and flies in ivermectin‐free dung showed that beetles removed nearly twice as much dung as did flies. Comparison of dung removal across all treatments showed that ivermectin residues significantly reduced dung removal provided by beetles by 47% and dung removal provided by beetles and flies together by 32%. 5. Organic matter decomposition was not significantly affected by insect colonists or by the presence of ivermectin, indicating that organic matter decomposition can occur independently of insect activity and chemical perturbations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".