Exposure of earthworm (Eisenia fetida) to bauxite residue: Implications for future rehabilitation programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bauxite residue is typically alkaline, has high sodium content and elevated concentrations of trace elements. Effective rehabilitation strategies are needed to mitigate potential environmental risks from its disposal and storage. Increasingly, the importance of viable soil faunal populations as well as establishment of vegetation covers is recognized as key components of successful rehabilitation. Inoculation with earthworms is a strategy for accelerating mine site rehabilitation, but little is known on the effects of bauxite residue properties on earthworm survival and viability. In the current study, earthworms (Eisenia fetida) were exposed for 28 days to a series of bauxite residue/soil treatments (0, 10, 25, 35, 50, 75 and 100% residue) to evaluate possible toxic effects on earthworms, investigate the bioavailability of relevant elements (e.g. As, Cr, V), and assess the risk of element transfer. Results showed that soil containing ≥25% residue (pH ≥ 9.8; ESP ≥ 18.5%; extractable Na ≥ 1122 mg/kg) significantly impacted survival (mortality ≥28%) and reproduction (cocoon production inhibition ≥76%) of the exposed earthworms. Alkalinity, sodicity and bioavailable Na were identified as major factors causing toxicity and some earthworms were observed to adopt compensative response (i.e. swollen body) to cope with osmotic stress. Conversely, soil containing 10% residue (pH = 9.1; ESP = 9.2%; extractable Na = 472 mg/kg) did not elicit significant toxicity at the organism level, but biomarker analysis (i.e. superoxide dismutase and catalase) in earthworm coelomocytes showed an oxidative stress. Furthermore, earthworms exposed to soil containing ≥10% residue took up and accumulated elevated concentrations of Al, As, Cr and V in comparison to the control earthworms. We concluded that earthworm inoculation could be used in future rehabilitation programmes once the key parameters responsible for toxicity are lowered below specific target values (i.e. pH = 9.1, ESP = 18.5%, extractable Na = 1122 mg/kg for Eisenia fetida). Nonetheless, trace element uptake in earthworms should be regularly monitored and the risk to the food chain further investigated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".