ArticleScientific reports2022
Intra-specific variation in sensitivity of Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis to three pesticides.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Species-specific brain transcriptomic responses to clothianidin and sulfoxaflor in pollinators.iScience · 2026Article
- A wild bumble bee shows intraspecific differences in sensitivity to multiple pesticides.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Azoxystrobin Exposure Impacts on Development Status and Physiological Responses of Worker Bees (International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- A new exposure protocol adapted for wild bees reveals species-specific impacts of the sulfoximine insecticide sulfoxaflor.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2024Article
- A novel insecticide impairs bumblebee memory and sucrose responsiveness across high and low nutrition.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Article
- Risk assessment requires several bee species to address species-specific sensitivity to insecticides at field-realistic concentrations.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Neither sulfoxaflor, Crithidia bombi, nor their combination impact bumble bee colony development or field bean pollination.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Mitigating Ecotoxicity Risks of Pesticides on Ornamental Plants Based on Life Cycle Assessment.Toxics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is growing evidence that pesticides may be among the causes of worldwide bee declines, which has resulted in repeated calls for their increased scrutiny in regulatory assessments. One recurring concern is that the current frameworks may be biased towards assessing risks to the honey bee. This paradigm requires extrapolating toxicity information across bee species. Most research effort has therefore focused on quantifying differences in sensitivity across species. However, our understanding of how responses to pesticides may vary within a species is still very poor. Here we take the first steps towards filling this knowledge gap by comparing acute, lethal hazards in sexes and castes of the eusocial bee Bombus terrestris and in sexes of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis after oral and contact exposure to the pesticides sulfoxaflor, Amistar (azoxystrobin) and glyphosate. We show that sensitivity towards pesticides varies significantly both within and across species. Bee weight was a meaningful predictor of pesticide susceptibility. However, weight could not fully explain the observed differences, which suggests the existence of unexplored mechanisms regulating pesticide sensitivity across bee sexes and castes. Our data show that intra-specific responses are an overlooked yet important aspect of the risk assessment of pesticides in bees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.