Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26415950›Full record

ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2015

Sublethal imidacloprid effects on honey bee flower choices when foraging.

Ahmed Karahan, Ibrahim Çakmak, John M Hranitz, Ismail Karaca, Harrington Wells

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Ecotoxicity of imidacloprid to soil invertebrates in two tropical soils with contrasting texture.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ahmed KarahanDepartment of Plant Protection, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Republic of Turkey.
Ibrahim ÇakmakBeekeeping Development Application and Research Center, MKP MYO, Uludag University, Bursa, Republic of Turkey. icakmak@uludag.edu.tr.
John M HranitzDepartment of Biological and Allied Health Sciences, Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, PA, 17815-1301, USA.
Ismail KaracaDepartment of Plant Protection, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Republic of Turkey.
Harrington WellsDepartment of Biology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA.
Süleyman Demirel University · TRBloomsburg University · USBursa Uludağ Üni̇versi̇tesi̇ · TRUniversity of Tulsa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonicotinoids, systemic neuro-active pesticides similar to nicotine, are widely used in agriculture and are being investigated for a role in honey bee colony losses. We examined one neonicotinoid pesticide, imidacloprid, for its effects on the foraging behavior of free-flying honey bees (Apis mellifera anatoliaca) visiting artificial blue and white flowers. Imidacloprid doses, ranging from 1/5 to 1/50 of the reported LD50, were fed to bees orally. The study consisted of three experimental parts performed sequentially without interruption. In Part 1, both flower colors contained a 4 μL 1 M sucrose solution reward. Part 2 offered bees 4 μL of 1.5 M sucrose solution in blue flowers and a 4 μL 0.5 M sucrose solution reward in white flowers. In Part 3 we reversed the sugar solution rewards, while keeping the flower color consistent. Each experiment began 30 min after administration of the pesticide. We recorded the percentage of experimental bees that returned to forage after treatment. We also recorded the visitation rate, number of flowers visited, and floral reward choices of the bees that foraged after treatment. The forager return rate declined linearly with increasing imidacloprid dose. The number of foraging trips by returning bees was also affected adversely. However, flower fidelity was not affected by imidacloprid dose. Foragers visited both blue and white flowers extensively in Part 1, and showed greater fidelity for the flower color offering the higher sugar solution reward in Parts 2 and 3. Although larger samples sizes are needed, our study suggests that imidacloprid may not affect the ability to select the higher nectar reward when rewards were reversed. We observed acute, mild effects on foraging by honey bees, so mild that storage of imidacloprid tainted-honey is very plausible and likely to be found in honey bee colonies.

Indexed as

AnimalsBeesChoice BehaviorFeeding BehaviorFlowersImidazolesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitro CompoundsimidaclopridImidazolesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitro CompoundsApis melliferaForaging behaviorNeonicotinoids

Identifiers

PMID26415950
OpenAlexW1835542199

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.