The digestive system of a cricket pulverizes polyethylene microplastics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microplastics (MPs; <5 mm) are a growing concern and a poorly understood threat to biota. Despite a recent spike in research on MPs, most of this work has focused on marine systems, and less is known about interactions between terrestrial organisms. We used a generalist insect (a cricket; Gryllodes sigillatus ) to examine whether individuals would ingest and physically degrade MPs in their food. We fed crickets a range of concentrations (0, 2.5, 5, and 10% w/w) of fluorescent MPs mixed into a standard diet and dissected the gut regions to isolate the MPs within. Comparing plastic content and fragment size within gut regions, we sought to identify whether and where crickets can fragment ingested MP particles. Given the digestive tract morphology of this species, we expected that the crickets would both ingest and egest the MPs. We also predicted that the MPs would be fragmented into smaller pieces during this digestive process. We found that G. sigillatus egested much smaller pieces than they ingested (likely into the nanoplastic range), and this fragmentation occurs early in the digestive process of this insect. These findings suggest that generalist insects can act as agents of plastic transformation in their environment if/when encountering MPs.
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".