Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34689272›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022

Pesticide residues in honeybee-collected pollen: does the EU regulation protect honeybees from pesticides?

Lotta Kaila, Jarmo Ketola, Marjaana Toivonen, Olli Loukola, Kati Hakala, Sakari Raiskio, Timo Hurme, Marja Jalli

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Environmental pollution effect on honey bees and their derived products: a comprehensive analysis.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lotta KailaDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014, Helsinki, Finland. lotta.kaila@helsinki.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-0971
Jarmo KetolaNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Tietotie 4, 31600, Jokioinen, Finland.
Marjaana ToivonenDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Olli LoukolaEcology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, University of Oulu, PO Box 3000, 90014, Oulu, Finland.
Kati HakalaFinnish Food Authority, Mustialankatu 3, 00790, Helsinki, Finland.
Sakari RaiskioNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Tietotie 4, 31600, Jokioinen, Finland.
Timo HurmeNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Tietotie 4, 31600, Jokioinen, Finland.
Marja JalliNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Tietotie 4, 31600, Jokioinen, Finland.
Natural Resources Institute Finland · FIUniversity of Helsinki · FIFinnish Food Authority · FIUniversity of Oulu · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers globally identify pesticides as one of the main reasons for pollinator decline. In the European Union (EU), extensive legislation is implemented to protect pollinators from harmful pesticide exposure. The aim of our study was to discover whether the pesticide residue levels in honeybee matrices, such as nectar and pollen, exceeded the chronic or acute toxicity levels when beehives were located next to fields treated with specific insecticides. The insecticides were used according to the EU legislation and its national implementation. The experiments were conducted in turnip rape, oilseed rape, and caraway fields in southern Finland during the years 2019 and 2020. The pesticides used in the experiments contained the active substances lambda-cyhalothrin (2019), esfenvalerate (2020), and tau-fluvalinate (2020). However, the honeybee-collected pollen and nectar were analyzed for residues of more than 100 active substances. The results showed that the pesticide residue levels clearly remained under the oral acute toxicity for honeybees, although we found high levels of thiacloprid residues in the pollen collected in 2019. The pesticide residues in nectar were below LOQ values, which was most likely due to the rainy weather conditions together with the chosen sampling method. No statistically significant differences were observed between the insecticide-treated and untreated fields. In light of our research, the EU legislation protected honeybees from oral acute toxicity during the years 2019 and 2020. However, potential sublethal effects of thiacloprid and other pesticide compounds found in the collected pollen cannot be ruled out. In the future, constant monitoring of pesticide exposure of honeybees and wild pollinators should be established to ensure that pesticide legislation, and its implementation across the EU successfully protects pollinators and their services in agricultural environments.

Indexed as

InsecticidesPesticide ResiduesPesticidesAnimalsBeesEuropean UnionPlant NectarPollenInsecticidesPesticide ResiduesPesticidesPlant NectarEU legislationField-realistic residuesImplementationPollinatorsRisk assessmentSustainable agriculture

Identifiers

PMID34689272
PMCPMC8873129
OpenAlexW3211197193

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.