Selective grazing behaviour of chironomids between three microalgal species under pesticide pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The herbicide diuron and the insecticide imidacloprid are amongst the most frequently detected pesticides in French rivers, and each is known to affect many aquatic organisms. However, it is less examined whether and how both pesticides together might induce multistress conditions, which could induce indirect effects such as modification of biological interactions within freshwater microbial communities. This study was undertaken to determine the effect of diuron and imidacloprid alone and in combination on the feeding behavior of chironomid larvae. A first experiment measured the impact of the different contamination conditions at environmental concentrations (5µg L-1 for each pesticide) on the grazing rate of chironomids on three microalgae species, independently. Therefore, two diatom species, Gomphonema gracile (two different morphotype: normal (GG) and teratogen (GT)) and Planothidium lanceolatum (PL), and one green algae Pseudokirchneriella supcapitata (PS) were offered as food, during 24h. Protein and lipid contents in microalgae were analysed subsequently. Each pesticide condition elicited a different grazing rate in chironomids with regards to algal species and their nutritional quality, with a general preference for Gomphonema gracile with teratogen shape and Pseudokirchneriella supcapitata. In a second experiment (cafeteria), food selectivity of chironomids was determined under similar contamination conditions during 4h: Under diuron, larvae switched equally among microalgae, then were as mobile as in the control without pesticide. However, imidacloprid and the pesticide mixture condition altered chironomids' movements and grazing behaviour. In these experiments, we highlighted that chironomids feeding behaviour and food preferences are impacted by pesticides. Herbicide and insecticide exposure, alone or in combination, had contrasting effects on grazing, both directly on the larvae or indirectly (food selectivity according to its quality). Our study illustrates the value of considering the impacts of toxicants on target and non-target organisms across trophic levels to improve ecotoxicological risk assessment in an ecosystemic perspective.
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 | 0.000 | 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".