Effects of Cry1Ab-Expressing Corn Anthers on Monarch Butterfly Larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies suggest that exposure to corn, Zea mays L., anthers expressing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-derived protein may have adverse effects on the larvae of monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (L.). To examine the potential effects of Bt anthers on monarch butterflies, studies were designed to test toxicity in the laboratory; examine anther distribution in space and time; compare distributions of anthers, pollen, and larval feeding; and measure effects of long-term exposure in the field. In the laboratory, monarch butterfly larvae fed on whole corn anthers, but anther feeding was sporadic. Larvae exposed to 0.3 anther/cm2 fed and weighed less after 4 d compared with larvae exposed to non-Bt anthers. Adverse effects increased with increasing anther density. Monarch butterfly larvae exposed to 0.9 anther/cm2 had reduced feeding, weight, and survival and increased developmental time compared with larvae exposed to non-Bt anthers. Later instars were more tolerant of Bt toxin. For all studies, laboratory testing probably magnified effects because larvae were confined to petri dishes. Field studies showed toxic anther densities are uncommon on milkweed (Asclepias) leaves in and near cornfields during anthesis. Mean anther densities on milkweed leaves in cornfields during peak anthesis were between 0.06 and 0.1 anther/cm2 (≈ 3–5 anthers per leaf). When exposure to a density of five anthers per leaf was tested in field-cage studies, no effects on growth, development, or survival were detected. Based on probability of exposure to toxic densities, Bt anthers alone are not likely to pose a significant risk to monarch butterflies in Iowa.
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".