Sub-lethal effects of the insecticide, imidacloprid, on the responses of damselfly larvae to chemosensory cues indicating predation risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insecticides, including the widely used neonicotinoids, can affect both pest and non-target species. In addition to lethal effects, these insecticides at sub-lethal levels may cause disruption to sensory perception and processing leading to behavioural impairments. In this laboratory experiment, we investigated the effects of a 10-day exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid, on the behaviour of larvae of the damselfly, Lestes congener. In tests of baseline activity, imidacloprid concentrations of 1.0 and 10.0 μg/L caused significant reductions in foraging behaviour. Moreover, in response to chemical cues that indicate a potential risk to the larvae, imidacloprid caused the loss of an appropriate antipredator response (reduced foraging) depending on the concentration and duration of exposure. Imidacloprid at 0.1 μg/L caused the loss of responses toward the odour of a beetle (Dytiscus spp.) predator after 10 days of exposure, whereas 1.0 μg/L caused lost responses toward both the predator odour and injured conspecific cues (i.e., alarm cues) and after only 2 days of exposure. However, at 10.0 μg/L, larvae responded appropriately to both cues throughout the duration of the study, suggesting compensatory responses to imidacloprid at higher concentrations. Hence, the lack of appropriate responses at 1.0 μg/L likely resulted from a cognitive impairment rather than chemical alteration of these important chemosensory cues. In the natural environment, such effects will likely cause decreased survivorship in predator encounters. Hence, imidacloprid exposure, even at low concentrations, could have adverse consequences for chemosensory ecology of this damselfly 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".