Ingestion of Microplastic Fibres, But Not Microplastic Beads, Impacts Growth Rates in the Tropical House Cricket Gryllodes Sigillatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microplastic is a growing concern as an environmental contaminant as it is ubiquitous in our ecosystems. Microplastics are present in terrestrial environments, yet the majority of studies have focused on the adverse effects of microplastics on aquatic biota. We hypothesized that microplastic ingestion by a terrestrial insect would have localized effects on gut health and nutrient absorption, such that prolonged dietary microplastic exposure would impact growth rate and adult body size. We further hypothesized that plastic form (fibres vs. beads) would influence these effects because of the nature of gut-plastic interactions. Freshly hatched tropical house crickets ( Gryllodes sigillatus ) were fed a standard diet containing different concentrations of either fluorescent polyethylene microplastic beads (75–105 μm), or untreated polyethylene terephthalate microfibers (< 5 mm) until they died or reached adulthood (approximately 8 weeks). Weight and body length were measured weekly and microplastic ingestion was confirmed through fluorescence microscopy and visual inspection of the frass. While, to our surprise, we found no effect of polyethylene bead ingestion on growth rate or final body size of G. sigillatus , females experienced a reduction in size and weight when fed high concentrations of polyethylene terephthalate microfibers. These results suggest that high concentrations of polyethylene beads of the 100 μm size range can pass through the cricket gut without a substantial negative effect on their growth and development time, but high concentrations of polyethylene terephthalate microfibers cannot. Although we report the negative effects of microplastic ingestion on the growth of G. sigillatus , it remains uncertain what threats microplastics pose to terrestrial insects.
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".