Impacts of compostable and non-compostable plastic ingestion on Tenebrio molitor L. (Insecta: Tenebrionidae): a life history approach

Impacts of compostable and non-compostable plastic ingestion on Tenebrio molitor L. (Insecta: Tenebrionidae): a life history approach | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Impacts of compostable and non-compostable plastic ingestion on Tenebrio molitor L. (Insecta: Tenebrionidae): a life history approach Walter Alain Martínez-Muñoz, Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés, Cecilia Soldatini, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6778438/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Given the harmful impact of plastics on organisms' fitness, one question arises: is compostable material (derived from non-oil sources) any better? Here we assessed the fitness effects of consuming two oil-derived plastics (polyethylene and polystyrene) and one compostable product in insects, utilizing Tenebrio molitor beetles as the study system. Animals were fed during the larval stage either of four different treatments: a) polyethylene + apple/wheat; b) polystyrene + apple/wheat; c) compostable product + apple/wheat; and d) apple/wheat alone. Upon reaching the adult stage, insects were provided with wheat and apple for 7 days, allowed to mate, and lay eggs. We recorded developmental rate and mortality from larvae to pupa, weight and fecundity, and survival probability from one stage to the next. Mortality was higher when animals consumed any type of plastic. The probability of survival was also affected, particularly in the pupal and adult stages. Feeding with any type of plastic oil-derived or compostable plastic led to a reduction in body size and reproductive success (measured as surviving larvae). Notably, in some cases, the group fed with compostable plastic was the most affected. Delays in development at different stages could increase mortality, while the decrease in egg production in females and the reduction in adult size could imply carry-over effects on demography. Perhaps, the additional materials in compostable products imply toxic effects like those caused by plastics. Thus, the effects of compostable products are not any better than those of plastics. plastic compostable material fitness insect Tenebrio life history survival weight fecundity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction In a world full of threatening factors, plastics are part of the top list of stressors (MacLeod, et al. 2021 ; Santos et al. 2021 ; Martinho et al. 2022 ). Plastics are produced through the polymerization of monomers derived from oil and gas. Two well-known examples are polyethylene (PE) and polystyrene (PS) which are extensively used for plastic bags and containers (such as Styrofoam®) respectively (Andrady and Neal 2009 ). Given the negative effects of these products, a proposed alternative is the use of bioplastics such as compostable plastics (CP), which are polymeric, non-oil derived materials from natural substances (Arikan and Ozsoy, 2015 ; Atiwesh et al. 2021 ). Unlike plastics, CP production presumably implies reduced greenhouse effects and energy-saving balance, faster degradation (Atiwesh, et al. 2021 ). Although there were doubts about the effects of plastic ingestion on animal physiology, we now have a clearer understanding. Studies using insects have shown negative effects at molecular levels, such as a high production of reactive oxygen species, antioxidant enzymes, lipid peroxidation indicators, and oxidative damage in Tenebrio molitor larvae fed with PE (Peng et al. 2023a and b ). Similarly, also in T. molitor larvae, when PS was part of the diet, negative effects were observed on the lipidome, with high levels of ceramides and cardiolipins being produced, which are implicated in apoptosis and cellular stress processes (Tsochatzis et al. 2022 ). At the DNA level, PS consumption affected the expression of genes that encode heat shock and oxidative stress proteins during development, specifically at the pupal formation stage Chironomus riparius dipteran larvae (Carrasco-Navarro et al. 2021 ). These negative effects also take place systemically. In C. riparius larvae, an increase in basal phenoloxidase activity was found after PE ingestion (Silva et al. 2021). Also, Bombyx mori larvae fed with PS, showed an increased expression of antimicrobial peptide (AMP) genes, such as lysozymes and cecropins (Muhammad et al. 2021 ). While the environmental advantages of using non-petroleum-derived plastics are known, there is still unconclusive evidence on their life history effects on insects. For example, consumption of polybutylene adipate terephthalate, a biodegradable and compostable copolymer, by T. molitor larvae over 4 weeks did not affect survival, mass, or molting rate (Kokalj et al. 2024a ). When black soldier fly was fed with the biodegradable polyester polylactic acid (PLA), their larval development, survival, as well as pupal development and rate, were not affected (Heussler et al. 2024 ). Conversely, T. molitor larvae fed with PBAT during the first and second generations, increased and decreased their molting rate in the first and second generation respectively (Kokalj et al. 2024b ). Finally, one other aspect that needs to be answered is that of the effects of both non-biodegradable plastics and bioplastics on insects when their ingestion is constant and long-term (i.e., during all or almost all the larval phase until adulthood). These elements are crucial since several future scenarios indicate that plastic waste in the environment will be a constant for all organisms across ecosystems (Su et al. 2022 ). Here we show the effects of ingesting plastic versus compostable material on insect fitness (measured as development rate, mortality, weight, hatching rate, fecundity, and survival probability among different age stages) using the mealworm beetle Tenebrio molitor (Linnaeus, 1758) as our study subject. We chose this animal based on previous research indicating that larvae can consume polymers for short periods of time (Yang et al., 2015), and that microplastic, oil-derived consumption impairs survival, growth, and development (Matyja et al., 2020 ). The novelty of our work lies in its comparison of the fitness effects of ingesting plastics vs CP, as well as in examining how fitness surrogates covariate with each other. Our working hypothesis is that the ingestion of biodegradable plastics will have little or no effect on the variables analyzed, compared to PS or PE. Materials and Methods Study species and experimental procedures Tenebrio molitor is a holometabolous insect with females capable of laying up to 500 eggs throughout their reproductive cycle (Frooninckx et al., 2022 ). The embryonic development takes 4 to 6 days, the larval development period spans 2 to 3 months, and the pupal stage lasts 6 days (Kim, 2015). After a few days, adults reach sexual maturity, and females begin ovipositing between days 4 and 17 after mating (Frooninckx et al., 2022 ). Individuals used in the study originated from several colonies in Mexico City and its metropolitan area. The animals were fed a standardized diet consisting of wheat bran and apple (Castro et al., 2017). Insects were housed in 15 plastic hinged containers (15 cm x 18 cm x 5.8 cm), each containing 200 individuals, to mitigate cannibalistic behavior. They were kept at a room temperature of 22.4°C with a photoperiod of 12:12 h light:dark cycle. By the third generation, adult mealworms were transferred to a glass container (70 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm), and their resulting larvae were used in the experiments. All experiments commenced with stage 3 larvae, approximately 1.5 cm long. The treatments and feeding regime included: a) Polystyrene (PS): larvae were provided with 1 cm 2 sections cut from REYMA brand disposable plates provided ad libitum ; b) Polyethylene (PE): fed with 5 cm x 5 cm sections of polyethylene bags from Poliexcel brand, commonly found in Mexican supermarkets; c) Compostable products (CP): fed with sections (5 cm x 5 cm) of Full Circle Fresh AirTM lemon-flavored bags (USA), made from cornstarch (Maizena) and other unspecified ingredients; and, d). Control: fed with 1 g of wheat bran and 2 cmᵌ of apple provided weekly, with an additional 0.5 g of wheat bran and 2 cmᵌ of apple every 15 days for the first three treatments. Each treatment consisted of 50 larvae, and all individuals were sexed upon reaching the pupal stage (see Pölkki et al., 2012 ). After reaching the adult stage, animals were paired, placed in separate containers, and fed ad libitum with wheat bran and apple cubes for seven days. After mating, the couples were separated, and individuals were monitored until death. Females (N = 10 per group) were provided with filter paper for ovipositing until death. Effects on developmental time, weight, hatching rate, and fecundity For all treatments, we recorded the number of days it took larvae to reach the pupal stage and adulthood, the number of dead larvae, and the time survived as adults. Each dead animal (as adult) was weighed (in g) after 48 hours using an electronic scale (VELAB electronic scale VE-1000). For females allowed to oviposit, we recorded the number of eggs and egg hatching success. Due to non-normality and/or homocedasticity of the data (even after transformation), we used non-parametric tests. The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to analyze the time to reach the next stage, with the Bonferroni post-hoc test applied when significant differences were observed (p < 0.05). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the number of dead individuals during each stage, with a Tukey's post-hoc test to identify significantly different groups. The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was applied to compare the weight of the adults, and the Bonferroni post-hoc test was performed subsequently. To compare overall differences in the duration of each developmental stage for the four treatment groups, we calculated the ratio of the duration in days of the Pupa stage to the Larvae stage (ratioPL) and then applied an ANOVA with a Tukey post-hoc test. Capture–Recapture Models To construct a database for processing in capture-recapture frame models, we organized the life table obtained from observations collected during the experiment. We considered recapture events every 5 days, with a reference to the duplication time of 7 days for a population under optimal conditions (Gotelli, 1995 ). This resulted in a life history database of 2197 samples with 35 capture-recapture occasions of same-age individuals. As our experimental population is closed, we applied a single state Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) model, followed by a multi-state model accounting for different developmental stages (Larvae, Pupa, and Adult: L, P, and A respectively). Detection probability remained constant throughout the experiment under controlled conditions. The CJS models applied were: a) CJS model (ϕ, p) with constant detection and survival; b) Time-varying survival and constant detection (ϕt, p); and, c) Constant detection and survival dependent on treatment (ϕtreat, p). In all cases, model selection was based on lower WAIC. In multi-state models, we considered developmental states (L, P, and A) plus dead as states (four states in total), with transitions only possible from L to P and from P to A, and from any state to dead. Detection was considered constant, and we applied two different models to estimate survival: a) A multistate model with constant detection (ϕL, ϕP, ϕA, ψLP, ψPA, pL, pP, pA); and, b) A multistate model with constant detection and treatment-dependent survival (ϕL, ϕP, ϕA, ψLP, ψPA, pL, pP, pA, βtreat). The latter aimed to identify a differential effect of treatments on the different developmental phases. Results are indicated as mean ± STD unless indicated otherwise. Results Developmental rate from larvae to pupa Time from larval to the pupal stage showed significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis H = 403.94, gl = 3, p < 0.001, Fig. 1 ). The control group (48.05 ± 0.22) had a faster development, compared to the other three groups (Bonferroni post-hoc tests p < 0.001, in all comparisons). Development time was shorter in the group fed with PE (79.43 ± 2.12) compared to the groups fed with CP (83.82 ± 1.38; p < 0.001) or PS (101.78 ± 0.89; p < 0.001). There were no differences between CP or PS (p = 0.55; Fig. 1 ), but there was a shorter pupal stage for the control group (7.67 ± 0.05, p 0.05 for all cases). Mortality from larvae to pupa The number of insects that died from pupal to adult stage was different among groups (ANOVA F 3,16 = 10.61, p < 0.001). The control (2.2 ± 1.16) and PE (4.2 ± 1.16) groups showed a lower mortality compared to CP (9.8 ± 0.73; Tukey's post-hoc test, p = 0.005 in both cases). PS did not show significant differences in mortality with respect to the experimental groups (p = 0.05 for PE, and p = 0.08 for CP) or the control group (p = 0.05). Final weight in adults The four groups differed (Kruskal-Wallis H = 309.85, gl = 3, p < 0.001): the Control group was heavier than the other three groups (Bonferroni’s post-hoc test p < 0.001 for all comparisons). PE, PS and CP differed among them (Bonferroni’s post-hoc test p < 0.001, for all comparisons). While the PE group had the lowest weight (0.0314 ± 0.00023), the CP group had the highest weight (0.0385 ± 0.00041) and the PS group had an intermediate value (0.0340 ± 0.00044). Hatching rate and fecundity The number of larvae hatched from surviving couples was different between the experimental groups and the control group (Kruskal-Wallis H 3 = 56.40, p < 0.001, Fig. 3 ). Females from the control group produced a higher number of larvae (27.46 individuals ± 0.80), compared to females that were fed with PE or PS (PS, 21.09 ± 0.72; PE, 17.90 ± 0.51; Bonferroni´s post hoc test p < 0.001, in both comparisons). Also, the number of larvae in the control group was higher compared to the adults fed with CP (CP 22.41 ± 0.67, Bonferroni’s post-hoc test p = 0.028). The number of larvae produced was higher in the group fed with CP, compared to the group fed with PE (Bonferroni’s post-hoc test p = 0.009). For the remaining comparisons of the experimental groups there were no significant differences (Fig. 3 ). Survival rate among life stages Among CJS models, the one better representing our experimental set considers treatment as the main factor affecting survival, more than individuals’ age (WAICs: ψtrat,p = 14.343, ψ,p = 15.809, ψage,p = 16.148). Also, being age less relevant than a constant condition we decided to consider stages more than age as factors affecting survival, so we applied multistate models. Multistate models considered different developmental stages as status: Larvae, Pupa and adult, plus dead stage as default. Age resulted as having an effect reducing survival probability of pupae and adult (Fig. 4 A). In Fig. 4 B we depict the three posterior distributions where pupae and adult show some variability. Considering the effect of treatment on survival in the multistate model, we obtained the mean and ranges of survival probability of the four different treatments for the three stages (Table 1 ). Treatment similarly affected the probability of survival compared to the control group, reporting major effects in pupal and adult stages (Fig. 5 ). Table 1 Survival estimations obtained from the Multistate model with developmental stage as state and treatment as covariate. age -> Larvae Pupa Adult Treatment Phi mean range Phi mean range Phi mean range Polyethylene (PE) 0.961 0.954–0.967 0.852 0.803–0.897 0.767 0.727–0.803 Polystyrene (PS) 0.963 0.958–0.968 0.876 0.844–0.908 0.788 0.760–0.813 Compostable products (CP) 0.965 0.959–0.970 0.897 0.857–0.924 0.807 0.782–0.827 Control 0.967 0.958–0.974 0.915 0.861–0.947 0.824 0.795–0.856 Table 2 Results of the Tuckey test as ANOVA post hoc of evidencing differences in ratioPL, ratio of the duration in days of Pupa stage on Larvae stage, between treatments difference range p control Vs CP 0.060 0.056–0.066 < 0.001 PE Vs CP -0.008 -0.013 - -0.003 < 0.001 PS Vs CP 0.000 -0.005–0.006 0.995 PE Vs control -0.069 -0.073 - -0.064 < 0.001 PS Vs control -0.060 -0.065- -0.055 < 0.001 PS Vs PE 0.008 0.003–0.013 < 0.001 Discussion Our results indicate that biodegradable plastics are not any better than common plastics. This is based on the adverse outcomes to fitness after consuming either plastic oil-derived or compostable plastics for almost all fitness variables. More specifically: compared to the control group, consuming these products delayed the developmental duration of both larval and pupal stages, hastened animal mortality, which resulted in lower weight (with the lightest in the PS and CP groups), and led to reduced survival. We will discuss each of these different effects below. One negative effect of consuming plastics oil-derived and bioplastics is the delay in developmental time. Although, the presence of micro- and oil-derived nanoplastics did not influence larval growth in Bombix mori (Muhammad et al., 2021 ). A similar result was reported in T. molitor and Hermetia illucens larvae after eating bioplastics (Heussler, et al. 2024 ; b et al. 2024). Our results showed that both types of plastics delay the development time. The differences could be explained by time, since our animals fed on both types of plastic from very early larval stages compared to previous studies. One related question is that of the cost of delayed development. A consequence is that animals can face more threats, such as predators, parasites, and/or parasitoids (Nylin and Gotthard, 1998 ). Increasing development times is common in insects, largely explained by not reaching a certain body mass threshold necessary to complete metamorphosis (Nijhout, 2003 ). This aligns with our result of reduced weight in animals that consumed plastics or compostable products: reduced weight could prolong development. There are several non-mutually exclusive mechanistic explanations for this. First, stressed animals may not gather enough or do not have access to particular nutrients for their development (e.g. Welden and Cowie, 2016). Second, the presence of toxic elements in both petroleum-derived and compostable plastics may cause negative effects (Wang et al., 2020; 2021; Zimmermann et al., 2021). Third, either plastics or compostable products may obstruct the digestive system and impede nutrient acquisition (Sigler, 2014 ). And fourth, plastics may affect the animal’s microbiota (Antonelli et al., 2022 ). Our results also showed that mortality increased when larvae were fed with biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastics, where even mortality was higher in the CP group. Similar studies showed that Drosophila melanogaster males had a higher mortality compared to females after ingesting PS microplastics (El Kholy and Al Nagar, 2023). In contrast, in yellow mealworm beetles and black soldier fly larvae that were fed bioplastics did not show increased mortality (Heussler, et al. 2024 ; Kokalj et al. 2024b ). However, similar to other studies (Wang et al., 2021), we found a trade-off between investment in development and survival. Also, the number of offspring after reproduction in surviving pairs of treatment groups was significantly lower than control. As explained above, the trade-offs may be understood by the different mechanisms underlying the ingestion of non-natural material. One challenge to clarify is how the different effects plastics non-biodegradable and bioplastics can cause on survival, reproduction, and growth may balance each other, resulting in some traits being less affected than others. For example, we are aware of the effects of oil derived microplastics on antioxidative stress response, sex hormone disruption, and disturbed transcription of steroidogenic genes as main drivers of impaired reproduction (Wang et al., 2021). How these effects may be balanced with the effects of the same material on, say, survival, is unclear. One other challenge is to explain whether the observed trade-offs are adaptive or are an artifact of an animal being unable, in general, to deal with, say, a toxic material. Finally, the idea that plastic ingestion has detrimental effects on life history traits and that this can lead to apparent trade-offs is not new (Santos et al., 2021 ). What is new about our work is the trade-off and outcome of ingesting compostable, which plays as much a detrimental role as ingesting plastics. For example, animals may trade off fecundity for development time after eating compostable products. Why would compostable products produce similarly acute patterns as plastics? At the proximate level, compostable products may contain similarly toxic components to those of common plastics. It is known that added components to plastics produce inflammatory responses, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, oxidative stress, and metabolic alterations that all together affect immunity, reproduction, and digestion in insects (reviewed by Sánchez-Hernández, 2021). This may be the case for compostable products too. For example, a study analyzed 43 biobased and biodegradable products and found that 67% showed baseline toxicity, 42% led to oxidative stress, and 23% induced antiandrogenicity (Zimmermann et al., 2021). Conclusions Considering the assertion that compostable products can serve as an alternative to conventional plastics, our work presents contradicting evidence: insects fed with compostable products may experience fitness effects (growth, fecundity, and survival) as detrimental as those observed in insects fed with plastics. The cause of this phenomenon is currently unknown, and one potential explanation is the presence of added toxic components in compostable products. Consequently, our work serves as a cautionary note against the argument advocating for the safety of using compostable materials. Declarations Funding This project was financed by a UNAM-PAPIIT grant IN204921 to AC-A. Competing interests Authors declare not to have any conflict of interests Ethical Approval Not applicable. This research did not require any specific ethical approval from an ethics committee Code availability N/A Authors Contributions Conceptualization : Alex Córdoba-Aguilar, Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés; Methodology : Walter Alain Martínez-Muñoz, Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas & Alex Córdoba-Aguilar; Formal analysis and investigation : Walter Alain Martínez-Muñoz, Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas; Writing - original draft preparation : Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas, Alex Córdoba-Aguilar; Writing - review and editing : Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas & Alex Córdoba-Aguilar; Funding acquisition : Alex Córdoba-Aguilar; Resources : Alex Córdoba-Aguilar; Supervision : Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés, Cecilia Soldatini, Alex Córdoba-Aguilar Acknowledgements To Angélica S. Ensaldo-Cardenas for the logistic help with the beetles. Data availability statement Data can be freely accessed from: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25135070.v1 References Antonelli P, Duval P, Luis P, Minard G, Valiente Moro C (2022) Reciprocal interactions between anthropogenic stressors and insect microbiota. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:64469–64488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21857-9 Andrady AL, Neal MA (2009) Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:1977–1984. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0304 Arikan EB, Ozsoy HD (2015) A review: investigation of bioplastics. J Civil Eng Archit 9:188–192. https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2015.02.007 Atiwesh G, Mikhael A, Parrish CC, Banoub J, Le TAT (2021) Environmental impact of bioplastic use: a review. Heliyon 7 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07918 Carrasco-Navarro V, Muniz-González AB, Sorvari J, Martínez-Guitarte JL (2021) Altered gene expression in Chironomus riparius (Insecta) in response to tire rubber and polystyrene microplastics. Environ Pollut 285:117462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117462 Castro-León I, Cervantes-Mayagoitia JF, Schettino-Bermúdez BS, Nogueda-Hernández N (2017) Comparación de cinco dietas alimenticias en la cría de Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Entomol Mex 4:616–620. https://acaentmex.org/entomologia/revista/2017/EV/EM0772017_616-620.pdf El Kholy S, Al Naggar Y (2023) Exposure to polystyrene microplastic beads causes sex-specific toxic effects in the model insect Drosophila melanogaster . Sci Rep 13:204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25057-w Frooninckx L, Berrens S, Van Peer M, Wuyts A, Broeckx L, Van Miert S (2022) Determining the effect of different reproduction factors on the field and hatching of Tenebrio molitor egg. Insects 13:615. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13070615 Gotelli NJ (1995) A primer of ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA(Paperpile Heussler CD, Dittmann IL, Egger B, Robra S, Klammsteiner T (2024) A comparative study of effects of biodegradable and non-biodegradable microplastics on the growth and development of black soldier fly larvae ( Hermetia illucens ). Waste Biomass Valorization 15:2313–2322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-023-02296-0 Kokalj AJ, Dolar A, Nagode A, Drobne D, Kuljanin A, Kalčíková G (2024a) Response of terrestrial crustacean Porcellio scaber and mealworm Tenebrio molitor to non-degradable and biodegradable fossil-based mulching film microplastics. Sci Total Environ 951:175379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175379 Kokalj AJ, Nagode A, Drobne D, Dolar A (2024b) Effects of agricultural microplastics in multigenerational tests with insects; mealworms Tenebrio molitor . Sci Total Environ 946:174490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174490 Martinho SD, Fernandes VC, Figueiredo SA, Delerue-Matos C (2022) Microplastic pollution focused on sources, distribution, contaminant interactions, analytical methods, and wastewater removal strategies: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:5610. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095610 Matyja K, Rybak J, Hanus-Lorenz B, Wróbel M, Rutkowski R (2020) Effects of polystyrene diet on Tenebrio molitor larval growth, development and survival: dynamic energy budget (DEB) model analysis. Environ Pollut 264:114740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114740 MacLeod M, Arp HPH, Tekman MB, Jahnke A (2021) The global threat from plastic pollution. Science 373:61–65. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abg5433 Muhammad A, Zhou X, He J, Zhang N, Shen X, Sun C, Shao Y (2021) Toxic effects of acute exposure to polystyrene microplastics and nanoplastics on the model insect, silkworm Bombyx mori . Environ Pollut 285:117255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117255 Nylin S, Gotthard K (1998) Plasticity in life-history traits. Annu Rev Entomol 43:63–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.63 Nijhout HF (2003) The control of body size in insects. Dev Biol 261:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-1606(03)00276-8 Peng BY, Xu Y, Sun Y, Xiao S, Sun J, Shen Z, Chen J, Zhou X, Zhang Y (2023a) Biodegradation of polyethylene (PE) microplastics by mealworm larvae: physiological responses, oxidative stress, and residual plastic particles. J Clean Prod 402:136831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136831 Peng BY, Sun Y, Li P, Yu S, Xu Y, Chen J, Zhou X, Wu XM, Zhang Y (2023b) Biodegradation of polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, and polylactic acid microplastics in Tenebrio molitor larvae: physiological responses. J Environ Manag 345:118818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118818 Pölkki M, Krams I, Kangassalo K, Rantala MJ (2012) Inbreeding affects sexual signalling in males but not females of Tenebrio molitor . Biol Lett 8:423–425. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.1135 Sanchez-Hernandez JC (2021) A toxicological perspective of plastic biodegradation by insect larvae. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 248:109117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109117 Santos RG, Machovsky-Capuska GE, Andrades R (2021) Plastic ingestion as an evolutionary trap: toward a holistic understanding. Science 373:56–60. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd7012 Sigler M (2014) The effects of plastic pollution on aquatic wildlife: current situations and future solutions. Water Air Soil Pollut 225:2184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2184-6 Su L, Xiong X, Zhang Y, Wu C, Xu X, Sun C, Shi H (2022) Global transportation of plastics and microplastics: a critical review of pathways and influences. Sci Total Environ 831:154884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154884 Tsochatzis ED, Berggreen IE, Vidal NP, Roman L, Gika H, Corredig M (2022) Cellular lipids and protein alteration during biodegradation of expanded polystyrene by mealworm larvae under different feeding conditions. Chemosphere 300:134420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134420 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 07 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 31 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 31 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 29 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6778438","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":472047728,"identity":"94c74343-559b-41f7-9031-1eac40fd625d","order_by":0,"name":"Walter Alain Martínez-Muñoz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Walter","middleName":"Alain","lastName":"Martínez-Muñoz","suffix":""},{"id":472047729,"identity":"8b92e808-26c6-444b-a908-996801ed03b3","order_by":1,"name":"Jesús Guillermo Jiménez-Cortés","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jesús","middleName":"Guillermo","lastName":"Jiménez-Cortés","suffix":""},{"id":472047730,"identity":"58ede434-9653-4e9f-a45d-3a1a1917e096","order_by":2,"name":"Cecilia Soldatini","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Baja California Sur","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cecilia","middleName":"","lastName":"Soldatini","suffix":""},{"id":472047731,"identity":"95710788-b0e2-4e8e-8298-081575f43263","order_by":3,"name":"Yuri V. Albores-Barajas","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur, Baja California Sur","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuri","middleName":"V.","lastName":"Albores-Barajas","suffix":""},{"id":472047732,"identity":"0a9e870d-ea62-412f-88ec-07fb372386ff","order_by":4,"name":"Alex Córdoba-Aguilar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alex","middleName":"","lastName":"Córdoba-Aguilar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-29 16:53:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6778438/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6778438/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85176249,"identity":"1d5448bb-84a0-4b5a-ae1a-5e5b13f647a6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-23 06:35:49","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18718,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage time from the larval to pupal stage in \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e according to treatment (after eating two different plastic types, compostable products and the control group) (± SE). The data refers to all 5 repetitions and total sample sizes are shown for each group.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6778438/v1/8739e427d957d28df008e891.png"},{"id":85177339,"identity":"90f5d22c-0e56-4d52-9b13-9ece856e849f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-23 06:43:49","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14824,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage time from the pupal to adult stage in \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e according to treatment (after eating two different plastic types, compostable products and the control group) (± SE). The data refers to all 5 repetitions and total sample sizes are shown for each group.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6778438/v1/8795bf0b29bca27930a9fce0.png"},{"id":85176253,"identity":"5dd5e119-841b-4dbe-9052-5a47976f14ec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-23 06:35:49","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":10353,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage number or larvae produced in \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e females according to treatment (after eating two different plastic types, compostable products and the control group) (± SE). The data refers to all 5 repetitions and total sample sizes are shown for each group.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6778438/v1/0d776619c9cf2915a15815e8.png"},{"id":85177787,"identity":"5af7958b-e411-4cd0-a65e-4593f6d7cb37","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-23 06:51:49","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":6878,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBoxplot of the ratio of the duration in days of the pupal stage on larval stage, ratioPL, for individuals according to treatment (after eating two different plastic types, compostable products and the control group).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6778438/v1/8793b2babfe707433191faf1.png"},{"id":85176269,"identity":"e8723ce0-8a63-4c40-8b24-3e8c6b28063c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-23 06:35:49","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42187,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA and B. Probability of encounter, p and of survival, phi of individuals of different developmental stages (larvae [J], pupa [P] and adult [A]) in \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6778438/v1/6fdb29b92eeb7b5d7ed3b5a5.png"},{"id":85177341,"identity":"43b33b5d-a66a-41e1-a7f4-fef169b0371d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-23 06:43:49","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26531,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSurvival probability of \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e individuals according to development stage according to treatment (after eating two different plastic types, compostable products and the control group).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6778438/v1/d9afa208f07ae4e594e45246.png"},{"id":85178652,"identity":"182b7b64-38e7-490f-8eb2-2798eceb7c3e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-23 06:59:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":586020,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6778438/v1/9bad62cd-c0be-4eda-8d94-405bddb0eeb6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Impacts of compostable and non-compostable plastic ingestion on Tenebrio molitor L. (Insecta: Tenebrionidae): a life history approach","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn a world full of threatening factors, plastics are part of the top list of stressors (MacLeod, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Santos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Martinho et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Plastics are produced through the polymerization of monomers derived from oil and gas. Two well-known examples are polyethylene (PE) and polystyrene (PS) which are extensively used for plastic bags and containers (such as Styrofoam\u0026reg;) respectively (Andrady and Neal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Given the negative effects of these products, a proposed alternative is the use of bioplastics such as compostable plastics (CP), which are polymeric, non-oil derived materials from natural substances (Arikan and Ozsoy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Atiwesh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike plastics, CP production presumably implies reduced greenhouse effects and energy-saving balance, faster degradation (Atiwesh, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough there were doubts about the effects of plastic ingestion on animal physiology, we now have a clearer understanding. Studies using insects have shown negative effects at molecular levels, such as a high production of reactive oxygen species, antioxidant enzymes, lipid peroxidation indicators, and oxidative damage in \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e larvae fed with PE (Peng et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003eb\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, also in \u003cem\u003eT. molitor\u003c/em\u003e larvae, when PS was part of the diet, negative effects were observed on the lipidome, with high levels of ceramides and cardiolipins being produced, which are implicated in apoptosis and cellular stress processes (Tsochatzis et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). At the DNA level, PS consumption affected the expression of genes that encode heat shock and oxidative stress proteins during development, specifically at the pupal formation stage \u003cem\u003eChironomus riparius\u003c/em\u003e dipteran larvae (Carrasco-Navarro et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These negative effects also take place systemically. In \u003cem\u003eC. riparius\u003c/em\u003e larvae, an increase in basal phenoloxidase activity was found after PE ingestion (Silva et al. 2021). Also, \u003cem\u003eBombyx mori\u003c/em\u003e larvae fed with PS, showed an increased expression of antimicrobial peptide (AMP) genes, such as lysozymes and cecropins (Muhammad et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the environmental advantages of using non-petroleum-derived plastics are known, there is still unconclusive evidence on their life history effects on insects. For example, consumption of polybutylene adipate terephthalate, a biodegradable and compostable copolymer, by \u003cem\u003eT. molitor\u003c/em\u003e larvae over 4 weeks did not affect survival, mass, or molting rate (Kokalj et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e). When black soldier fly was fed with the biodegradable polyester polylactic acid (PLA), their larval development, survival, as well as pupal development and rate, were not affected (Heussler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, \u003cem\u003eT. molitor\u003c/em\u003e larvae fed with PBAT during the first and second generations, increased and decreased their molting rate in the first and second generation respectively (Kokalj et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, one other aspect that needs to be answered is that of the effects of both non-biodegradable plastics and bioplastics on insects when their ingestion is constant and long-term (i.e., during all or almost all the larval phase until adulthood). These elements are crucial since several future scenarios indicate that plastic waste in the environment will be a constant for all organisms across ecosystems (Su et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere we show the effects of ingesting plastic versus compostable material on insect fitness (measured as development rate, mortality, weight, hatching rate, fecundity, and survival probability among different age stages) using the mealworm beetle \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e (Linnaeus, 1758) as our study subject. We chose this animal based on previous research indicating that larvae can consume polymers for short periods of time (Yang et al., 2015), and that microplastic, oil-derived consumption impairs survival, growth, and development (Matyja et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The novelty of our work lies in its comparison of the fitness effects of ingesting plastics vs CP, as well as in examining how fitness surrogates covariate with each other. Our working hypothesis is that the ingestion of biodegradable plastics will have little or no effect on the variables analyzed, compared to PS or PE.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy species and experimental procedures\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e is a holometabolous insect with females capable of laying up to 500 eggs throughout their reproductive cycle (Frooninckx et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The embryonic development takes 4 to 6 days, the larval development period spans 2 to 3 months, and the pupal stage lasts 6 days (Kim, 2015). After a few days, adults reach sexual maturity, and females begin ovipositing between days 4 and 17 after mating (Frooninckx et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals used in the study originated from several colonies in Mexico City and its metropolitan area. The animals were fed a standardized diet consisting of wheat bran and apple (Castro et al., 2017). Insects were housed in 15 plastic hinged containers (15 cm x 18 cm x 5.8 cm), each containing 200 individuals, to mitigate cannibalistic behavior. They were kept at a room temperature of 22.4\u0026deg;C with a photoperiod of 12:12 h light:dark cycle. By the third generation, adult mealworms were transferred to a glass container (70 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm), and their resulting larvae were used in the experiments. All experiments commenced with stage 3 larvae, approximately 1.5 cm long. The treatments and feeding regime included: a) Polystyrene (PS): larvae were provided with 1 cm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e sections cut from REYMA brand disposable plates provided \u003cem\u003ead libitum\u003c/em\u003e; b) Polyethylene (PE): fed with 5 cm x 5 cm sections of polyethylene bags from Poliexcel brand, commonly found in Mexican supermarkets; c) Compostable products (CP): fed with sections (5 cm x 5 cm) of Full Circle Fresh AirTM lemon-flavored bags (USA), made from cornstarch (Maizena) and other unspecified ingredients; and, d). Control: fed with 1 g of wheat bran and 2 cmᵌ of apple provided weekly, with an additional 0.5 g of wheat bran and 2 cmᵌ of apple every 15 days for the first three treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach treatment consisted of 50 larvae, and all individuals were sexed upon reaching the pupal stage (see P\u0026ouml;lkki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). After reaching the adult stage, animals were paired, placed in separate containers, and fed \u003cem\u003ead libitum\u003c/em\u003e with wheat bran and apple cubes for seven days. After mating, the couples were separated, and individuals were monitored until death. Females (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10 per group) were provided with filter paper for ovipositing until death.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffects on developmental time, weight, hatching rate, and fecundity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor all treatments, we recorded the number of days it took larvae to reach the pupal stage and adulthood, the number of dead larvae, and the time survived as adults. Each dead animal (as adult) was weighed (in g) after 48 hours using an electronic scale (VELAB electronic scale VE-1000). For females allowed to oviposit, we recorded the number of eggs and egg hatching success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDue to non-normality and/or homocedasticity of the data (even after transformation), we used non-parametric tests. The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to analyze the time to reach the next stage, with the Bonferroni post-hoc test applied when significant differences were observed (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the number of dead individuals during each stage, with a Tukey's post-hoc test to identify significantly different groups. The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was applied to compare the weight of the adults, and the Bonferroni post-hoc test was performed subsequently. To compare overall differences in the duration of each developmental stage for the four treatment groups, we calculated the ratio of the duration in days of the Pupa stage to the Larvae stage (ratioPL) and then applied an ANOVA with a Tukey post-hoc test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapture\u0026ndash;Recapture Models\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo construct a database for processing in capture-recapture frame models, we organized the life table obtained from observations collected during the experiment. We considered recapture events every 5 days, with a reference to the duplication time of 7 days for a population under optimal conditions (Gotelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). This resulted in a life history database of 2197 samples with 35 capture-recapture occasions of same-age individuals. As our experimental population is closed, we applied a single state Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) model, followed by a multi-state model accounting for different developmental stages (Larvae, Pupa, and Adult: L, P, and A respectively). Detection probability remained constant throughout the experiment under controlled conditions. The CJS models applied were: a) CJS model (ϕ, p) with constant detection and survival; b) Time-varying survival and constant detection (ϕt, p); and, c) Constant detection and survival dependent on treatment (ϕtreat, p). In all cases, model selection was based on lower WAIC. In multi-state models, we considered developmental states (L, P, and A) plus dead as states (four states in total), with transitions only possible from L to P and from P to A, and from any state to dead. Detection was considered constant, and we applied two different models to estimate survival: a) A multistate model with constant detection (ϕL, ϕP, ϕA, ψLP, ψPA, pL, pP, pA); and, b) A multistate model with constant detection and treatment-dependent survival (ϕL, ϕP, ϕA, ψLP, ψPA, pL, pP, pA, βtreat). The latter aimed to identify a differential effect of treatments on the different developmental phases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults are indicated as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;STD unless indicated otherwise.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eDevelopmental rate from larvae to pupa\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime from larval to the pupal stage showed significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis H\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;403.94, gl\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The control group (48.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22) had a faster development, compared to the other three groups (Bonferroni post-hoc tests p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, in all comparisons). Development time was shorter in the group fed with PE (79.43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.12) compared to the groups fed with CP (83.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.38; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) or PS (101.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.89; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). There were no differences between CP or PS (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.55; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), but there was a shorter pupal stage for the control group (7.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) compared to the other three groups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). No significant differences emerged for the other groups (CP, 7.84\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07; PS, 8.11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.12; PE, 8.35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09; Bonferroni post-hoc test p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 for all cases).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMortality from larvae to pupa\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of insects that died from pupal to adult stage was different among groups (ANOVA F\u003csub\u003e3,16\u003c/sub\u003e = 10.61, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The control (2.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.16) and PE (4.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.16) groups showed a lower mortality compared to CP (9.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.73; Tukey's post-hoc test, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.005 in both cases). PS did not show significant differences in mortality with respect to the experimental groups (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05 for PE, and p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08 for CP) or the control group (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinal weight in adults\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe four groups differed (Kruskal-Wallis H\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;309.85, gl\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001): the Control group was heavier than the other three groups (Bonferroni\u0026rsquo;s post-hoc test p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 for all comparisons). PE, PS and CP differed among them (Bonferroni\u0026rsquo;s post-hoc test p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, for all comparisons). While the PE group had the lowest weight (0.0314\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.00023), the CP group had the highest weight (0.0385\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.00041) and the PS group had an intermediate value (0.0340\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.00044).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHatching rate and fecundity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of larvae hatched from surviving couples was different between the experimental groups and the control group (Kruskal-Wallis H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;56.40, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemales from the control group produced a higher number of larvae (27.46 individuals\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.80), compared to females that were fed with PE or PS (PS, 21.09\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.72; PE, 17.90\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.51; Bonferroni\u0026acute;s post hoc test p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, in both comparisons). Also, the number of larvae in the control group was higher compared to the adults fed with CP (CP 22.41\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.67, Bonferroni\u0026rsquo;s post-hoc test p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.028). The number of larvae produced was higher in the group fed with CP, compared to the group fed with PE (Bonferroni\u0026rsquo;s post-hoc test p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.009). For the remaining comparisons of the experimental groups there were no significant differences (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvival rate among life stages\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong CJS models, the one better representing our experimental set considers treatment as the main factor affecting survival, more than individuals\u0026rsquo; age (WAICs: ψtrat,p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.343, ψ,p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.809, ψage,p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.148). Also, being age less relevant than a constant condition we decided to consider stages more than age as factors affecting survival, so we applied multistate models. Multistate models considered different developmental stages as status: Larvae, Pupa and adult, plus dead stage as default. Age resulted as having an effect reducing survival probability of pupae and adult (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA). In Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB we depict the three posterior distributions where pupae and adult show some variability. Considering the effect of treatment on survival in the multistate model, we obtained the mean and ranges of survival probability of the four different treatments for the three stages (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Treatment similarly affected the probability of survival compared to the control group, reporting major effects in pupal and adult stages (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvival estimations obtained from the Multistate model with developmental stage as state and treatment as covariate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eage -\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarvae\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePupa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhi mean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhi mean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhi mean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolyethylene (PE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.961\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.954\u0026ndash;0.967\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.852\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.803\u0026ndash;0.897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.767\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.727\u0026ndash;0.803\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolystyrene (PS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.963\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.958\u0026ndash;0.968\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.876\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.844\u0026ndash;0.908\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.788\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.760\u0026ndash;0.813\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompostable products (CP)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.965\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.959\u0026ndash;0.970\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.857\u0026ndash;0.924\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.807\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.782\u0026ndash;0.827\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.967\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.958\u0026ndash;0.974\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.915\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.861\u0026ndash;0.947\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.795\u0026ndash;0.856\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults of the Tuckey test as ANOVA post hoc of evidencing differences in ratioPL, ratio of the duration in days of Pupa stage on Larvae stage, between treatments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edifference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003econtrol Vs CP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.056\u0026ndash;0.066\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePE Vs CP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.013 - -0.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePS Vs CP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.005\u0026ndash;0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.995\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePE Vs control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.073 - -0.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePS Vs control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.065- -0.055\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePS Vs PE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.003\u0026ndash;0.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results indicate that biodegradable plastics are not any better than common plastics. This is based on the adverse outcomes to fitness after consuming either plastic oil-derived or compostable plastics for almost all fitness variables. More specifically: compared to the control group, consuming these products delayed the developmental duration of both larval and pupal stages, hastened animal mortality, which resulted in lower weight (with the lightest in the PS and CP groups), and led to reduced survival. We will discuss each of these different effects below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne negative effect of consuming plastics oil-derived and bioplastics is the delay in developmental time. Although, the presence of micro- and oil-derived nanoplastics did not influence larval growth in \u003cem\u003eBombix mori\u003c/em\u003e (Muhammad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A similar result was reported in \u003cem\u003eT. molitor\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eHermetia illucens\u003c/em\u003e larvae after eating bioplastics (Heussler, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; b et al. 2024). Our results showed that both types of plastics delay the development time. The differences could be explained by time, since our animals fed on both types of plastic from very early larval stages compared to previous studies. One related question is that of the cost of delayed development. A consequence is that animals can face more threats, such as predators, parasites, and/or parasitoids (Nylin and Gotthard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Increasing development times is common in insects, largely explained by not reaching a certain body mass threshold necessary to complete metamorphosis (Nijhout, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This aligns with our result of reduced weight in animals that consumed plastics or compostable products: reduced weight could prolong development. There are several non-mutually exclusive mechanistic explanations for this. First, stressed animals may not gather enough or do not have access to particular nutrients for their development (e.g. Welden and Cowie, 2016). Second, the presence of toxic elements in both petroleum-derived and compostable plastics may cause negative effects (Wang et al., 2020; 2021; Zimmermann et al., 2021). Third, either plastics or compostable products may obstruct the digestive system and impede nutrient acquisition (Sigler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). And fourth, plastics may affect the animal\u0026rsquo;s microbiota (Antonelli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results also showed that mortality increased when larvae were fed with biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastics, where even mortality was higher in the CP group. Similar studies showed that \u003cem\u003eDrosophila melanogaster\u003c/em\u003e males had a higher mortality compared to females after ingesting PS microplastics (El Kholy and Al Nagar, 2023). In contrast, in yellow mealworm beetles and black soldier fly larvae that were fed bioplastics did not show increased mortality (Heussler, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kokalj et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). However, similar to other studies (Wang et al., 2021), we found a trade-off between investment in development and survival. Also, the number of offspring after reproduction in surviving pairs of treatment groups was significantly lower than control. As explained above, the trade-offs may be understood by the different mechanisms underlying the ingestion of non-natural material. One challenge to clarify is how the different effects plastics non-biodegradable and bioplastics can cause on survival, reproduction, and growth may balance each other, resulting in some traits being less affected than others. For example, we are aware of the effects of oil derived microplastics on antioxidative stress response, sex hormone disruption, and disturbed transcription of steroidogenic genes as main drivers of impaired reproduction (Wang et al., 2021). How these effects may be balanced with the effects of the same material on, say, survival, is unclear. One other challenge is to explain whether the observed trade-offs are adaptive or are an artifact of an animal being unable, in general, to deal with, say, a toxic material.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the idea that plastic ingestion has detrimental effects on life history traits and that this can lead to apparent trade-offs is not new (Santos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). What is new about our work is the trade-off and outcome of ingesting compostable, which plays as much a detrimental role as ingesting plastics. For example, animals may trade off fecundity for development time after eating compostable products. Why would compostable products produce similarly acute patterns as plastics? At the proximate level, compostable products may contain similarly toxic components to those of common plastics. It is known that added components to plastics produce inflammatory responses, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, oxidative stress, and metabolic alterations that all together affect immunity, reproduction, and digestion in insects (reviewed by S\u0026aacute;nchez-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, 2021). This may be the case for compostable products too. For example, a study analyzed 43 biobased and biodegradable products and found that 67% showed baseline toxicity, 42% led to oxidative stress, and 23% induced antiandrogenicity (Zimmermann et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eConsidering the assertion that compostable products can serve as an alternative to conventional plastics, our work presents contradicting evidence: insects fed with compostable products may experience fitness effects (growth, fecundity, and survival) as detrimental as those observed in insects fed with plastics. The cause of this phenomenon is currently unknown, and one potential explanation is the presence of added toxic components in compostable products. Consequently, our work serves as a cautionary note against the argument advocating for the safety of using compostable materials.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis project was financed by a UNAM-PAPIIT grant IN204921 to AC-A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors declare not to have any conflict of interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This research did not require any specific ethical approval from an ethics committee\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCode availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors Contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConceptualization\u003c/em\u003e: Alex C\u0026oacute;rdoba-Aguilar, Jes\u0026uacute;s Guillermo Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Cort\u0026eacute;s; \u003cem\u003eMethodology\u003c/em\u003e: Walter Alain Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Mu\u0026ntilde;oz, Jes\u0026uacute;s Guillermo Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Cort\u0026eacute;s, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas \u0026amp; Alex C\u0026oacute;rdoba-Aguilar; \u003cem\u003eFormal analysis and investigation\u003c/em\u003e: Walter Alain Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Mu\u0026ntilde;oz, Jes\u0026uacute;s Guillermo Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Cort\u0026eacute;s, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas; \u003cem\u003eWriting - original draft preparation\u003c/em\u003e: Jes\u0026uacute;s Guillermo Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Cort\u0026eacute;s, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas, Alex C\u0026oacute;rdoba-Aguilar; \u003cem\u003eWriting - review and editing\u003c/em\u003e: Jes\u0026uacute;s Guillermo Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Cort\u0026eacute;s, Cecilia Soldatini, Yuri V. Albores-Barajas \u0026amp; Alex C\u0026oacute;rdoba-Aguilar; \u003cem\u003eFunding acquisition\u003c/em\u003e: Alex C\u0026oacute;rdoba-Aguilar; \u003cem\u003eResources\u003c/em\u003e: Alex C\u0026oacute;rdoba-Aguilar; \u003cem\u003eSupervision\u003c/em\u003e: Jes\u0026uacute;s Guillermo Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Cort\u0026eacute;s, Cecilia Soldatini, Alex C\u0026oacute;rdoba-Aguilar\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo Ang\u0026eacute;lica S. Ensaldo-Cardenas for the logistic help with the beetles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData can be freely accessed from: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25135070.v1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAntonelli P, Duval P, Luis P, Minard G, Valiente Moro C (2022) Reciprocal interactions between anthropogenic stressors and insect microbiota. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:64469\u0026ndash;64488. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21857-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11356-022-21857-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrady AL, Neal MA (2009) Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:1977\u0026ndash;1984. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0304\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rstb.2008.0304\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArikan EB, Ozsoy HD (2015) A review: investigation of bioplastics. J Civil Eng Archit 9:188\u0026ndash;192. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2015.02.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17265/1934-7359/2015.02.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtiwesh G, Mikhael A, Parrish CC, Banoub J, Le TAT (2021) Environmental impact of bioplastic use: a review. Heliyon 7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07918\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07918\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarrasco-Navarro V, Muniz-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez AB, Sorvari J, Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Guitarte JL (2021) Altered gene expression in \u003cem\u003eChironomus riparius\u003c/em\u003e (Insecta) in response to tire rubber and polystyrene microplastics. Environ Pollut 285:117462. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117462\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117462\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastro-Le\u0026oacute;n I, Cervantes-Mayagoitia JF, Schettino-Berm\u0026uacute;dez BS, Nogueda-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez N (2017) Comparaci\u0026oacute;n de cinco dietas alimenticias en la cr\u0026iacute;a de \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e L. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Entomol Mex 4:616\u0026ndash;620. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://acaentmex.org/entomologia/revista/2017/EV/EM0772017_616-620.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://acaentmex.org/entomologia/revista/2017/EV/EM0772017_616-620.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl Kholy S, Al Naggar Y (2023) Exposure to polystyrene microplastic beads causes sex-specific toxic effects in the model insect \u003cem\u003eDrosophila melanogaster\u003c/em\u003e. Sci Rep 13:204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25057-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-022-25057-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrooninckx L, Berrens S, Van Peer M, Wuyts A, Broeckx L, Van Miert S (2022) Determining the effect of different reproduction factors on the field and hatching of \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e egg. Insects 13:615. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/insects13070615\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/insects13070615\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGotelli NJ (1995) A primer of ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA(Paperpile\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeussler CD, Dittmann IL, Egger B, Robra S, Klammsteiner T (2024) A comparative study of effects of biodegradable and non-biodegradable microplastics on the growth and development of black soldier fly larvae (\u003cem\u003eHermetia illucens\u003c/em\u003e). Waste Biomass Valorization 15:2313\u0026ndash;2322. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-023-02296-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12649-023-02296-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKokalj AJ, Dolar A, Nagode A, Drobne D, Kuljanin A, Kalč\u0026iacute;kov\u0026aacute; G (2024a) Response of terrestrial crustacean \u003cem\u003ePorcellio scaber\u003c/em\u003e and mealworm \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e to non-degradable and biodegradable fossil-based mulching film microplastics. Sci Total Environ 951:175379. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175379\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175379\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKokalj AJ, Nagode A, Drobne D, Dolar A (2024b) Effects of agricultural microplastics in multigenerational tests with insects; mealworms \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e. Sci Total Environ 946:174490. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174490\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174490\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartinho SD, Fernandes VC, Figueiredo SA, Delerue-Matos C (2022) Microplastic pollution focused on sources, distribution, contaminant interactions, analytical methods, and wastewater removal strategies: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:5610. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095610\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph19095610\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatyja K, Rybak J, Hanus-Lorenz B, Wr\u0026oacute;bel M, Rutkowski R (2020) Effects of polystyrene diet on \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e larval growth, development and survival: dynamic energy budget (DEB) model analysis. Environ Pollut 264:114740. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114740\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114740\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacLeod M, Arp HPH, Tekman MB, Jahnke A (2021) The global threat from plastic pollution. Science 373:61\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abg5433\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abg5433\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuhammad A, Zhou X, He J, Zhang N, Shen X, Sun C, Shao Y (2021) Toxic effects of acute exposure to polystyrene microplastics and nanoplastics on the model insect, silkworm \u003cem\u003eBombyx mori\u003c/em\u003e. Environ Pollut 285:117255. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117255\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117255\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNylin S, Gotthard K (1998) Plasticity in life-history traits. Annu Rev Entomol 43:63\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.63\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.63\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNijhout HF (2003) The control of body size in insects. Dev Biol 261:1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-1606(03)00276-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0012-1606(03)00276-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeng BY, Xu Y, Sun Y, Xiao S, Sun J, Shen Z, Chen J, Zhou X, Zhang Y (2023a) Biodegradation of polyethylene (PE) microplastics by mealworm larvae: physiological responses, oxidative stress, and residual plastic particles. J Clean Prod 402:136831. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136831\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136831\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeng BY, Sun Y, Li P, Yu S, Xu Y, Chen J, Zhou X, Wu XM, Zhang Y (2023b) Biodegradation of polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, and polylactic acid microplastics in \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e larvae: physiological responses. J Environ Manag 345:118818. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118818\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118818\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eP\u0026ouml;lkki M, Krams I, Kangassalo K, Rantala MJ (2012) Inbreeding affects sexual signalling in males but not females of \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e. Biol Lett 8:423\u0026ndash;425. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.1135\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rsbl.2011.1135\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSanchez-Hernandez JC (2021) A toxicological perspective of plastic biodegradation by insect larvae. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 248:109117. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109117\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109117\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantos RG, Machovsky-Capuska GE, Andrades R (2021) Plastic ingestion as an evolutionary trap: toward a holistic understanding. Science 373:56\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd7012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.abd7012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSigler M (2014) The effects of plastic pollution on aquatic wildlife: current situations and future solutions. Water Air Soil Pollut 225:2184. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2184-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11270-014-2184-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu L, Xiong X, Zhang Y, Wu C, Xu X, Sun C, Shi H (2022) Global transportation of plastics and microplastics: a critical review of pathways and influences. Sci Total Environ 831:154884. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154884\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154884\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsochatzis ED, Berggreen IE, Vidal NP, Roman L, Gika H, Corredig M (2022) Cellular lipids and protein alteration during biodegradation of expanded polystyrene by mealworm larvae under different feeding conditions. Chemosphere 300:134420. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134420\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134420\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"evolutionary-ecology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"evec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Evolutionary Ecology](https://www.springer.com/journal/10682)","snPcode":"10682","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10682/3","title":"Evolutionary Ecology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"plastic, compostable material, fitness, insect, Tenebrio, life history, survival, weight, fecundity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6778438/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6778438/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eGiven the harmful impact of plastics on organisms' fitness, one question arises: is compostable material (derived from non-oil sources) any better? Here we assessed the fitness effects of consuming two oil-derived plastics (polyethylene and polystyrene) and one compostable product in insects, utilizing \u003cem\u003eTenebrio molitor\u003c/em\u003e beetles as the study system. Animals were fed during the larval stage either of four different treatments: a) polyethylene\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;apple/wheat; b) polystyrene\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;apple/wheat; c) compostable product\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;apple/wheat; and d) apple/wheat alone. Upon reaching the adult stage, insects were provided with wheat and apple for 7 days, allowed to mate, and lay eggs. We recorded developmental rate and mortality from larvae to pupa, weight and fecundity, and survival probability from one stage to the next. Mortality was higher when animals consumed any type of plastic. The probability of survival was also affected, particularly in the pupal and adult stages. Feeding with any type of plastic oil-derived or compostable plastic led to a reduction in body size and reproductive success (measured as surviving larvae). Notably, in some cases, the group fed with compostable plastic was the most affected. Delays in development at different stages could increase mortality, while the decrease in egg production in females and the reduction in adult size could imply carry-over effects on demography. Perhaps, the additional materials in compostable products imply toxic effects like those caused by plastics. Thus, the effects of compostable products are not any better than those of plastics.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Impacts of compostable and non-compostable plastic ingestion on Tenebrio molitor L. (Insecta: Tenebrionidae): a life history approach","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-23 06:35:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6778438/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-07T17:40:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T06:11:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"124843465305617329285524789409549017422","date":"2025-09-15T04:06:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"210686572443423842823827203709961898220","date":"2025-07-28T07:10:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-04T13:17:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"147979796751770211270107972892100263636","date":"2025-06-26T14:25:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-16T14:21:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-31T08:29:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-31T08:26:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Evolutionary Ecology","date":"2025-05-29T16:46:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"evolutionary-ecology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"evec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Evolutionary Ecology](https://www.springer.com/journal/10682)","snPcode":"10682","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10682/3","title":"Evolutionary Ecology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b4655f63-d2eb-4a6c-9217-3dde3ff6aece","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 23rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-16T17:23:46+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-23 06:35:44","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6778438","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6778438","identity":"rs-6778438","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}