Does habitat quality matter to soil invertebrates in metal-contaminated soils?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of habitat quality (HQ) on the reproduction and bioenergetics (energy reserve and metabolic enzyme activities) of the oribatid mite, Oppia nitens, in response to cadmium (Cd). In the baseline toxicity test, Cd elevated the carbohydrate reserve of adult mites at intermediate Cd concentrations (88 and 175 mg Cd kg−1) but without a change in lipid and protein reserve across 0–700 mg Cd kg−1. The activities of glucose metabolism enzymes, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) and pyruvate kinase (PK) were inhibited in the mites at 700 mg Cd kg−1. Adult mites reared in high HQ soils had higher reproduction relative to mites from low HQ soils when exposed to Cd in OECD soil, but there was no difference in bioenergetics between mites from low and high HQ soils. Hence, HQ significantly (p = 0.024) influenced the reproduction of mites (i.e., juvenile production) irrespective of the Cd concentration in the OECD soil but did not significantly affect the bioenergetics of the mites. We suggest that habitat quality’s effect could be more significant than metal concentration on the biological fitness (juvenile production) of O. nitens in metal-contaminated soils.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".