Developmental and reproductive effects of clothianidin exposure in monarch butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neonicotinoid insecticides are used to reduce crop damage caused by insect pests, but sublethal levels could affect development and reproduction in nontarget insects, such as monarch butterflies ( Danaus plexippus ) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). To investigate the impact of field-realistic concentrations of the neonicotinoid clothianidin on monarch butterflies, we grew swamp milkweed ( Asclepias incarnata ) (Apocynaceae) in either low (15 ng/g of soil) or high (25 ng/g of soil) levels of clothianidin, or in a control (0 ng/g), then raised monarchs on the milkweed. Morphological traits of monarch caterpillars were measured during development and, once they eclosed, were mated as adults to quantify egg size and mass and the number of eggs laid. Although the effects of the treatment had complex effects on caterpillar length, width and volume of late-instar caterpillars were negatively affected. Fifth-instar caterpillars from the high-dose insecticide treatment had lower mass than other groups. Adult monarch butterflies raised on treated milkweed were larger than controls, but clothianidin exposure did not affect the number of eggs laid or egg size. Although the magnitude of the effect depends on clothianidin concentration, our results suggest that exposure to clothianidin during early life can impact monarch caterpillar development but is unlikely to reduce female reproductive output.
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".