ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2025
Evaluation of herbicide formulations and spreading agents on survival of the bumblebee Bombus impatiens following spray and contact exposure.
Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surfactants are often included as co-formulants in the application of herbicides to aid in spreading and adherence to plant surfaces, but toxicity to native bees has not been extensively tested. In a set of progressive experiments, we evaluated effects of products containing glyphosate and spreading agents, as well as spreading agents alone, on bumblebees (Bombus impatiens Cresson) using parametric survival analysis. We test spreaders from multiple chemical classes including Silwet L-77© (trisiloxane), Alligare 90© (polyoxyethylene), and Southern Ag SA-50© (C10-16 alcohols). We report low lethality of high-glyphosate herbicide formulations (Rodeo©), but bee mortality increased ~20% with addition of a silicone-based spreading agent (Silwet L-77©). Spreaders alone strongly affected bee survival: effects were concentration-specific and did not differ depending on exposure method (spray application vs. application to surfaces contacted by bees). The widely used trisiloxane-based spreader Silwet L-77© was especially hazardous, and exposure to high concentrations of Silwet L-77© caused rapid and near-total mortality in B. impatiens. Analysis of whole-bee cuticle extracts after exposure revealed clear differences in the cuticular hydrocarbon profiles associated with exposure to spreading agents: the alkane n-hexacosane was present in all extracts but was detected in greater relative abundance from bees exposed to Silwet L-77© and Alligare 90©. To support wild bee conservation efforts, we recommend substituting alcohol-based spreaders for siloxane-based spreaders when possible. In addition, certain cuticular hydrocarbons may be useful as biomarkers of previous exposure to certain surfactants, which can aid investigations evaluating causes of bumblebee decline across landscapes.
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.