ArticlePloS one2024
Sublethal effects of imidacloprid-contaminated honey stores on colony performance, queens, and worker activities in fall and early winter colonies.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neonicotinoid-contaminated sugar stores can have both near term and long term effects on honey bees due to their persistence in honey stores. Effects of imidacloprid food stores contaminants were examined in subtropical colonies that experience reduced brood rearing and foraging during overwintering. Colonies were given treatment sugar syrup containing 0 ppb (control), 20 ppb (field relevant), or 100 ppb (above field relevant) imidacloprid over six weeks to simulate contaminated fall nectar. Colonies were evaluated immediately (post-treatment) and 10 weeks (mid-winter) after treatment to compare proximal and latent effects. Post-treatment 0 ppb and 20 ppb colonies had more workers than 100 ppb colonies while 0 ppb colonies more brood than 20 ppb or 100 ppb colonies. Mid-winter 0 ppb and 20 ppb colonies had more workers than 100 ppb colonies and 0 ppb colonies more brood than 100 ppb colonies. Colonies experienced seasonal declines in stored pollen but no treatment effects. Lower 100 ppb colony performance was associated with reduced effort rather than lifespan. RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tracking revealed that workers had similar adult lifespans across treatments; however, 100 ppb workers engaged in activities outside the colony for less time than 0 ppb workers. Imidacloprid exposure affected queen but not worker nutritional physiology. Nurses retained well-developed hypopharyngeal glands (as indicated by head protein) across treatments. Mid-winter queens from 0 ppb colonies had marginally higher ovary protein than queens from 100 ppb colonies and more ovary lipids than queens from 20 ppb colonies. However, queen nutrient stores in non-reproductive tissues (fat bodies) did not differ across treatments. Queens from different treatments were attended by comparable numbers of retinue workers and had similar gland contents of four QMP (Queen Mandibular Pheromone) components essential to queen care. High levels of imidacloprid in sugar stores can negatively affect colony performance months after initial storage.
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.