Implications of Endectocide Residues on the Survival of Aphodiine Dung Beetles: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often difficult to compare studies examining the effects of endectocides on dung fauna because of different experimental approaches, for example, active ingredients (eprinomectin, doramectin, ivermectin, moxidectin) and formulations (injectable, pour-on, spiked). To gain a better understanding, we performed a quantitative meta-analysis using 22 studies to assess the overall effect of endectocide residues on the occurrence (presence or absence) and abundance of aphodiine dung beetles. Our results document a positive effect on the occurrence of adult beetles, indicating that adults tend to be attracted to dung with residues. Conversely, larvae are less likely to occur in the presence of residues. Thus, either adults that colonize dung with residues do not lay eggs or, more likely, the larvae that hatch from these eggs die early in development. Abundance of adult and larval stages was shown to be significantly reduced in dung containing residues. When individual endectocides were compared, only ivermectin demonstrated a significantly negative effect on the abundance of both adults and larvae, possibly owing to a small sample size for other agents. In laboratory studies, only dung "spiked" with endectocides reduced the abundance of larvae, whereas during field research, only pour-on applications were shown to reduce the abundance of larvae. The present study further documents the nontarget effects of endectocide residues on dung-dwelling organisms, provides robust evidence on the consequences of different application methods, and emphasizes the need for standardized methodological techniques in future studies. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:863-872. © 2020 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 | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.069 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".