Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26582026›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2015

Reconciling laboratory and field assessments of neonicotinoid toxicity to honeybees.

Mickaël Henry, Nicolas Cerrutti, Pierrick Aupinel, Axel Decourtye, Mélanie Gayrard, Jean-François Odoux, Aurélien Pissard, Charlotte Rüger, Vincent Bretagnolle

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
24.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. iScience · 2026
    Review
  2. The GenusInsects · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Workers ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in quantifying wildlife behavioural responses to chemical pollution.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mickaël HenryINRA, UR406 Abeilles et Environnement, 84914 Avignon, France UMT Protection des Abeilles dans l'Environnement, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon, France mickael.henry@paca.inra.fr.
Nicolas CerruttiUMT Protection des Abeilles dans l'Environnement, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon, France Terres Inovia, Centre de Grignon, Avenue Lucien Brétignières, 78850 Thiverval Grignon, France.
Pierrick AupinelINRA, UE1255, UE Entomologie, 17700 Surgères, France.
Axel DecourtyeUMT Protection des Abeilles dans l'Environnement, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon, France Association de Coordination Technique Agricole, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon, France ITSAP-Institut de l'Abeille, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon, France.
Mélanie GayrardTerres Inovia, Centre de Grignon, Avenue Lucien Brétignières, 78850 Thiverval Grignon, France.
Jean-François OdouxINRA, UE1255, UE Entomologie, 17700 Surgères, France.
Aurélien PissardAssociation de Coordination Technique Agricole, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon, France.
Charlotte RügerTerres Inovia, Centre de Grignon, Avenue Lucien Brétignières, 78850 Thiverval Grignon, France.
Vincent BretagnolleCentre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, UMR 7372, CNRS and Université de La Rochelle, 79360 Beauvoir-sur-Niort, France LTER 'Zone Atelier Plaine and Val de Sèvre', Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS, 79360 Villiers-en-Bois, France.
Acta les instituts techniques agricoles · FRAssociation pour l'Utilisation du Rein Artificiel dans la région Lyonnaise · FRTerres Univia · FRCentre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

European governments have banned the use of three common neonicotinoid pesticides due to insufficiently identified risks to bees. This policy decision is controversial given the absence of clear consistency between toxicity assessments of those substances in the laboratory and in the field. Although laboratory trials report deleterious effects in honeybees at trace levels, field surveys reveal no decrease in the performance of honeybee colonies in the vicinity of treated fields. Here we provide the missing link, showing that individual honeybees near thiamethoxam-treated fields do indeed disappear at a faster rate, but the impact of this is buffered by the colonies' demographic regulation response. Although we could ascertain the exposure pathway of thiamethoxam residues from treated flowers to honeybee dietary nectar, we uncovered an unexpected pervasive co-occurrence of similar concentrations of imidacloprid, another neonicotinoid normally restricted to non-entomophilous crops in the study country. Thus, its origin and transfer pathways through the succession of annual crops need be elucidated to conveniently appraise the risks of combined neonicotinoid exposures. This study reconciles the conflicting laboratory and field toxicity assessments of neonicotinoids on honeybees and further highlights the difficulty in actually detecting non-intentional effects on the field through conventional risk assessment methods.

Indexed as

AnimalsBeesFranceImidazolesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitro CompoundsOxazinesRisk AssessmentThiamethoxamThiazolesimidaclopridImidazolesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitro CompoundsOxazinesThiamethoxamThiazolesApis melliferaimidaclopridoilseed rapepesticidesthiamethoxam

Identifiers

PMID26582026
PMCPMC4685821
OpenAlexW2235886068

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.