ArticleDie Naturwissenschaften2026
Biases and blind spots in the global research agenda on metallic pollution and bees.
Article in Die Naturwissenschaften, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metallic pollution is an emerging and underappreciated stressor contributing to global bee declines, yet the evidence base remains fragmented across metals, taxa, endpoints, and geographic regions. Here, we provide the first hypothesis-driven scientometric synthesis of the global literature on metallic pollutants and bees. Using Web of Science records, we compiled 154 experimental and field-based studies and quantitatively tested five predictions regarding taxonomic, methodological, and thematic biases. Publication output increased sharply after 2013, with China, the United States, and Brazil leading research activity. Research effort was disproportionately concentrated on managed honey bees (Apis mellifera and Apis cerana), adult workers, and dietary exposure pathways, while larvae, wild bee taxa, and environmentally mediated exposures were less examined. Physiological, behavioural and mortality endpoints dominated the literature, whereas reproductive and microbiome impacts remained major blind spots. Adverse outcomes predominate across metals, although essential elements (Zn, Cu, Se) tended to produce less severe effects than non-essential toxic metals (Cd, Pb, Hg), this difference disappeared when exposure concentration and duration were considered. Experimental concentrations varied significantly among metals in food-based exposure studies, indicating substantial heterogeneity in dosing regimes across the literature. Multi-metal studies were not statistically underrepresented, although only a narrow subset of metal combinations has been repeatedly tested. Overall, this synthesis highlights strong structural biases in current knowledge production and identifies priorities for future research, including broader taxonomic coverage, inclusion of early life stages, standardised field-realistic exposures, and integration of chronic, sublethal, and multi-stressor scenarios. Expanding evidence toward more ecologically representative designs will be essential for robust risk assessment of metallic contamination in pollinator communities.
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.