Neonicotinoid and sulfoximine pesticides differentially impair insect escape behavior and motion detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect nervous systems offer unique advantages for studying interactions between sensory systems and behavior, given their complexity with high tractability. By examining the neural coding of salient environmental stimuli and resulting behavioral output in the context of environmental stressors, we gain an understanding of the effects of these stressors on brain and behavior and provide insight into normal function. The implication of neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides in contributing to declines of nontarget species, such as bees, has motivated the development of new compounds that can potentially mitigate putative resistance in target species and declines of nontarget species. We used a neuroethologic approach, including behavioral assays and multineuronal recording techniques, to investigate effects of imidacloprid (IMD) and the novel insecticide sulfoxaflor (SFX) on visual motion-detection circuits and related escape behavior in the tractable locust system. Despite similar LD 50 values, IMD and SFX evoked different behavioral and physiological effects. IMD significantly attenuated collision avoidance behaviors and impaired responses of neural populations, including decreases in spontaneous firing and neural habituation. In contrast, SFX displayed no effect at a comparable sublethal dose. These results show that neonics affect population responses and habituation of a visual motion detection system. We propose that differences in the sublethal effects of SFX reflect a different mode of action than that of IMD. More broadly, we suggest that neuroethologic assays for comparative neurotoxicology are valuable tools for fully addressing current issues regarding the proximal effects of environmental toxicity in nontarget species.
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".