ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2025
Can Fish Escape the Evolutionary Trap Induced by Microplastics?
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaps between Laboratory Experiments and Real-World Exposure: Toxicological Assessment of Microplastics Is Based on Inadequate Evidence.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
- A novel non-invasive imaging technique for mapping microplastic accumulation and distribution in different organ systems of Indian major carpCurrent research in toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microplastic (MP) ingestion acts as an evolutionary trap with various ecological consequences. Cues that lead animals to respond differently to MPs are key factors driving MP ingestion, yet they remain poorly understood. Here, we quantified the susceptibility of three fish species to different types of MPs across different social contexts. Our results showed that bass were more attracted to MPs that resembled food visually, whereas carp tended to select MPs that shared olfactory cues with food. Goldfish relied more on oral processing to make foraging decisions on MPs. Structural differences in the oropharynx supported these discriminated oral processes. Enlarged group size and fasting time altered the foraging behaviors of MPs of goldfish and bass, both of which were suction-feeding species. Such behavioral changes, regardless of whether fish ultimately ingested or rejected MPs, could pose indirect costs to fish. However, changed group sizes and fasting times did not affect the intake of MPs by the filter-feeding carp. We also proposed four pathways causing the MP-induced evolutionary trap and discussed the potential of fish to escape this trap. Our results contribute to experimental and theoretical understanding of the ecological risks posed by MPs to aquatic species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.