Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34413379›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Identities, concentrations, and sources of pesticide exposure in pollen collected by managed bees during blueberry pollination.

Kelsey K Graham, Meghan O Milbrath, Yajun Zhang, Annuet Soehnlen, Nicolas Baert, Scott McArt, Rufus Isaacs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Analysis of contaminant residues in honey bee hive matrices.The Science of the total environment · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pesticide contamination of beeswax from managed honey bee colonies in New York State.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Kelsey K GrahamDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, 202 CIPS, 578 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. kelsey.katherine.graham@gmail.com.
Meghan O MilbrathDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, 202 CIPS, 578 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Yajun ZhangDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, 202 CIPS, 578 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Annuet SoehnlenDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, 202 CIPS, 578 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Nicolas BaertDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, 4129 Comstock Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Scott McArtDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, 4129 Comstock Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Rufus IsaacsDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, 202 CIPS, 578 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bees are critical for crop pollination, but there is limited information on levels and sources of pesticide exposure in commercial agriculture. We collected pollen from foraging honey bees and bumble bees returning to colonies placed in blooming blueberry fields with different management approaches (conventional, organic, unmanaged) and located across different landscape settings to determine how these factors affect pesticide exposure. We also identified the pollen and analyzed whether pesticide exposure was correlated with corbicular load composition. Across 188 samples collected in 2 years, we detected 80 of the 259 pesticide active ingredients (AIs) screened for using a modified QuEChERS method. Detections included 28 fungicides, 26 insecticides, and 21 herbicides. All samples contained pesticides (mean = 22 AIs per pollen sample), with pollen collected from bees on conventional fields having significantly higher average concentrations (2019 mean = 882.0 ppb) than those on unmanaged fields (2019 mean = 279.6 ppb). Pollen collected by honey bees had more AIs than pollen collected by bumble bees (mean = 35 vs. 19 AIs detected at each farm, respectively), whereas samples from bumble bees had higher average concentrations, likely reflecting differences in foraging behavior. Blueberry pollen was more common in pollen samples collected by bumble bees (25.9% per sample) than honey bees (1.8%), though pesticide concentrations were only correlated with blueberry pollen for honey bees. Pollen collected at farms with more blueberry in the surrounding landscape had higher pesticide concentrations, mostly AIs applied for control of blueberry pathogens and pests during bloom. However, for honey bees, the majority of AIs detected at each farm are not registered for use on blueberry at any time (55.2% of AIs detected), including several highly toxic insecticides. These AIs therefore came from outside the fields and farms they are expected to pollinate. For bumble bees, the majority of AIs detected in their pollen are registered for use on blueberry during bloom (56.9% of AIs detected), though far fewer AIs were sprayed at the focal farm (16.7%). Our results highlight the need for integrated farm and landscape-scale stewardship of pesticides to reduce exposure to pollinators during crop pollination.

Indexed as

AnimalsBeesBlueberry PlantsPesticidesPollenPollinationPesticides

Identifiers

PMID34413379
PMCPMC8377133

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.