Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26313444›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Their Impacts on Bees: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and Identification of Knowledge Gaps.

Ola Lundin, Maj Rundlöf, Henrik G Smith, Ingemar Fries, Riccardo Bommarco

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Role of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Insecticide Residue Degradation.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pesticides in the population of European hedgehogs (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 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

5 authors.

Ola LundinSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden; University of California, Department of Entomology and Nematology, Davis, California 95616, United States of America.
Maj RundlöfLund University, Department of Biology, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Henrik G SmithLund University, Department of Biology, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden; Lund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Ingemar FriesSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Riccardo BommarcoSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been suggested that the widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides threatens bees, but research on this topic has been surrounded by controversy. In order to synthesize which research approaches have been used to examine the effect of neonicotinoids on bees and to identify knowledge gaps, we systematically reviewed research on this subject that was available on the Web of Science and PubMed in June 2015. Most of the 216 primary research studies were conducted in Europe or North America (82%), involved the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (78%), and concerned the western honey bee Apis mellifera (75%). Thus, little seems to be known about neonicotinoids and bees in areas outside Europe and North America. Furthermore, because there is considerable variation in ecological traits among bee taxa, studies on honey bees are not likely to fully predict impacts of neonicotinoids on other species. Studies on crops were dominated by seed-treated maize, oilseed rape (canola) and sunflower, whereas less is known about potential side effects on bees from the use of other application methods on insect pollinated fruit and vegetable crops, or on lawns and ornamental plants. Laboratory approaches were most common, and we suggest that their capability to infer real-world consequences are improved when combined with information from field studies about realistic exposures to neonicotinoids. Studies using field approaches often examined only bee exposure to neonicotinoids and more field studies are needed that measure impacts of exposure. Most studies measured effects on individual bees. We suggest that effects on the individual bee should be linked to both mechanisms at the sub-individual level and also to the consequences for the colony and wider bee populations. As bees are increasingly facing multiple interacting pressures future research needs to clarify the role of neonicotinoids in relative to other drivers of bee declines.

Indexed as

Research DesignAnimalsBeesCrops, AgriculturalEuropeImidazolesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitro CompoundsNorth AmericaSerial PublicationsimidaclopridImidazolesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitro Compounds

Identifiers

PMID26313444
PMCPMC4552548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.