ArticlePloS one2025
Short-term persistence of foliar insecticides and fungicides in pumpkin plants and their pollinators.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To minimize the risk to bees and other beneficial insects, plant protection chemicals are typically applied to pollinator-dependent crop plants when flowers are absent or unopened. However, this approach does not entirely remove the risk of pollinator exposure. Much research has focused on negative effects of systemic insecticides (e.g., seed treatments) on pollinators, but less is known about the level of hazard posed by translocation of non-systemic foliar-applied pesticides to pollen and nectar that bees consume. In this study we assess the frequency and persistence of six foliar-applied pesticides in pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) tissues and in their bee visitors. We analyzed residues of three insecticides (carbaryl, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin) and three fungicides (chlorothalonil, quinoxyfen, triflumizole) in pumpkin leaves, pollen, and nectar collected from five farms in the north-central USA, one day before a spray event, and one, three, and seven days after. Bees foraging on pumpkin flowers were collected one day before and one day after spray and screened for the same pesticides. Overall, insecticides were present in 56% of leaf samples. Compared to leaves, fewer pollen (insecticide detected in 16%, fungicide in 16%) and nectar samples (14%, 0%) contained pesticides. We detected one insecticide (carbaryl) in two out of 69 samples of foraging bees, and only in male squash bees (not in bumble or honey bees), which have life history traits that bring them into prolonged close contact with the sprayed crop plants. The persistence of some agrochemicals in leaves, pollen, and nectar up to a week following application merits consideration when managing pollinator-dependent crops. Even pesticides that are traditionally considered contact-based and applied when flowers are unopened can reach pollen and nectar and produce measurable risk to 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.