Stability of kangaroo rat burrows in the Sonoran Desert: evidence of biocementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kangaroo rats ( Dipodomys deserti) construct complex burrow systems in loose desert sand that survive temperature and relative humidity fluctuations and storms. Animals that burrow in desert sand typically burrow in compacted sand, near plant roots, or when the soil is unsaturated. However, these processes are insufficient to explain tunnel stability of kangaroo rats. Our goal is to understand how kangaroo rat burrows remain stable in loose desert sand, intending to translate this knowledge to geotechnical engineering. A kangaroo rat habitat in the dunes of the Sonoran Desert, AZ, was selected for the study. Dynamic cone penetrometer tests performed at active, abandoned, and no-burrow sites demonstrated that the animals prefer loose sand for burrow construction. Soil samples collected from the burrows’ ceilings, subsurface, and surface were characterized. Brazilian tensile strength test results showed that burrow soil has approximately three times greater tensile strength than the rest at dry state, which indicates increased interparticle attractive stress in burrow ceilings due to biocementation. Laboratory experiments, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal microscopy images showed that fungal and microbial biofilms provided 17 kPa increase in interparticle attractive stress at less than 1% biomass concentration, indicating potential to be used in soil improvement applications.
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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".