Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34292667›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2022

Is there a risk to honeybees from use of thiamethoxam as a sugar beet seed treatment?

Helen Thompson, Sarah Vaughan, Anne-Katrin Mahlein, Erwin Ladewig, Christine Kenter

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Leaf Bacteriome in Sugar Beet Shows Differential Response againstInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  3. Interaction of Insecticides and Fungicides in Bees.Frontiers in insect science · 2021
    Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Helen ThompsonSyngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Station, Berkshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5137-5214
Sarah VaughanSyngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Station, Berkshire, UK.
Anne-Katrin MahleinInstitute of Sugar Beet Research, Göttingen, Germany.
Erwin LadewigInstitute of Sugar Beet Research, Göttingen, Germany.
Christine KenterInstitute of Sugar Beet Research, Göttingen, Germany.
Syngenta (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Syngenta
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ban imposed by the European Union on the use of neonicotinoids as sugar beet seed treatments was based on the exposure of bees to residues of neonicotinoids in pollen and nectar of succeeding crops. To address this concern, residues of thiamethoxam (TMX) and clothianidin (CTD) were analyzed in soil collected from fields planted in at least the previous year with thiamethoxam-treated sugar beet seed. This soil monitoring program was conducted at 94 sites across Germany in two separate years. In addition, a succeeding crop study assessed residues in soil, guttation fluid, pollen, and nectar sampled from untreated succeeding crops planted in the season after thiamethoxam seed-treated sugar beet at eight field sites across five countries. The overall mean residues observed in soil monitoring were 8.0 ± 0.5 µg TMX + CTD/kg in the season after the use of treated sugar beet seed. Residue values decreased with increasing time interval between the latest thiamethoxam or clothianidin application before sugar beet drilling and with lower application frequency. Residues were detected in guttation fluid (2.0-37.7 µg TMX/L); however, the risk to pollinators from this route of exposure is likely to be low, based on the reported levels of consumption. Residues of thiamethoxam and clothianidin in pollen and nectar sampled from the succeeding crops were detected at or below the limit of quantification (0.5-1 µg a.i./kg) in 86.7% of pollen and 98.6% of nectar samples and, unlike guttation fluid residues, were not correlated with measured soil residues. Residues in pollen and nectar are lower than reported sublethal adverse effect concentrations in studies with honeybee and bumble bee individuals and colonies fed only thiamethoxam-treated sucrose, and are lower than those reported to result in no effects in honeybees, bumble bees, and solitary bees foraging on seed-treated crops. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:709-721. © 2021 SYNGENTA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Indexed as

Beta vulgarisInsecticidesAnimalsBeesCrops, AgriculturalNeonicotinoidsNitro CompoundsOxazinesPlant NectarSeedsSoilSugarsThiamethoxamVegetablesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsNitro CompoundsOxazinesPlant NectarSoilSugarsThiamethoxamHoneybeeRisk assessmentSeed treatmentSugar beetthiamethoxam

Identifiers

PMID34292667
PMCPMC9290588
OpenAlexW3184408015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.