Effects of neonicotinoids on putative escape behavior of juvenile wood frogs (<i>Lithobates sylvaticus</i>) chronically exposed as tadpoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonicotinoids are water-soluble neurotoxic insecticides widely used in agriculture that are being detected in nontarget aquatic environments. Nontarget aquatic wildlife, such as amphibians, may be at risk of exposure. Studies using larval stages suggest neonicotinoids are a minor concern to amphibians; however, behavioral effects manifesting later in life are not often considered. Behavioral endpoints could further our understanding of potential sublethal neurotoxic effects after exposure has ended. Using juvenile wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus), we investigated the effects of chronic larval exposure to 3 concentrations (1, 10, and 100 μg/L) of formulations containing imidacloprid or thiamethoxam on the putative escape response to a simulated heron attack. We found that control frogs actively responded (i.e., moved or jumped) to the simulated predator attack but frogs exposed to imidacloprid at 10 and 100 μg/L were less likely to respond. The exposed frogs, specifically from the imidacloprid treatment at 10 μg/L (tendency at 100 μg/L) were less likely to leave the attack area compared with controls. However, frogs used refuge similarly among all treatments. Finally, there were no differences in locomotor performance, as measured by total number of jumps and distance traveled during a trial among treatments. In conclusion, our study suggests that exposure to neonicotinoids during amphibian larval development may affect a juvenile frog's ability to perceive or respond to a predator, potentially increasing their vulnerability to predation. Future studies should validate and explore this potential effect further. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:3115-3123. © 2018 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc. on behalf of 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".