Developmental Effects of Microplastic Ingestion on the Tropical House Cricket Gryllodes sigillatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microplastic (MP) is a growing concern as an environmental contaminant as it is now considered ubiquitous in our ecosystems.Microplastics have been confirmed to be present in terrestrial environments, yet the majority of studies have focused on the adverse effects of MPs on aquatic biota.I tested the effect of prolonged dietary microplastic exposure on the growth of the tropical house cricket Gryllodes sigillatus.Freshly hatched crickets were fed a standard diet containing different concentrations of fluorescent polyethylene MP beads (75-105µm) or untreated polyethylene terephthalate microfibers mixed into their diet until adulthood.Weight and body length were measured weekly and MP ingestion was confirmed through fluorescence microscopy and visual inspection of frass.Surprisingly, I found no effect of polyethylene MP ingestion on growth rate or final body size of G. sigillatus, yet females experienced a reduction in size and weight at high concentrations of polyethylene terephthalate microfibers in their diet.These results suggest that high concentrations of polyethylene MP beads can be passed through the cricket's gut without a substantial negative effect on their growth and development time, but high concentrations of polyethylene terephthalate microfibers cannot.Although we report the effects of MP ingestion on the growth of G. sigillatus, it remains uncertain what threats microplastics pose to other insect life history traits such as fecundity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".