Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25901681›Full record

ArticleNature2015

Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees.

Maj Rundlöf, Georg K S Andersson, Riccardo Bommarco, Ingemar Fries, Veronica Hederström, Lina Herbertsson, Ove Jonsson, Björn K Klatt, Thorsten R Pedersen, Johanna Yourstone and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 277 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
277citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

277 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

217 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Maj RundlöfLund University, Department of Biology, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Georg K S Andersson1] Lund University, Department of Biology, 223 62 Lund, Sweden [2] Lund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Riccardo BommarcoSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Ingemar FriesSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Veronica HederströmLund University, Department of Biology, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Lina HerbertssonLund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Ove Jonsson1] Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden [2] Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Centre for Chemical Pesticides, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Björn K KlattLund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Thorsten R PedersenSwedish Board of Agriculture, 551 82 Jönköping, Sweden.
Johanna YourstoneLund University, Department of Biology, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Henrik G Smith1] Lund University, Department of Biology, 223 62 Lund, Sweden [2] Lund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees is vital because of reported declines in bee diversity and distribution and the crucial role bees have as pollinators in ecosystems and agriculture. Neonicotinoids are suspected to pose an unacceptable risk to bees, partly because of their systemic uptake in plants, and the European Union has therefore introduced a moratorium on three neonicotinoids as seed coatings in flowering crops that attract bees. The moratorium has been criticized for being based on weak evidence, particularly because effects have mostly been measured on bees that have been artificially fed neonicotinoids. Thus, the key question is how neonicotinoids influence bees, and wild bees in particular, in real-world agricultural landscapes. Here we show that a commonly used insecticide seed coating in a flowering crop can have serious consequences for wild bees. In a study with replicated and matched landscapes, we found that seed coating with Elado, an insecticide containing a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, applied to oilseed rape seeds, reduced wild bee density, solitary bee nesting, and bumblebee colony growth and reproduction under field conditions. Hence, such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated. The lack of a significant response in honeybee colonies suggests that reported pesticide effects on honeybees cannot always be extrapolated to wild bees.

Indexed as

Brassica rapaSeedsAnimalsAnimals, WildBeesCrops, AgriculturalFemaleGuanidinesInsecticidesMaleNeonicotinoidsNesting BehaviorNitrilesPlant NectarPollenPollinationclothianidincyfluthrinGuanidinesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitrilesPlant NectarPyrethrinsThiazoles

Identifiers

PMID25901681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.