The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment
Open accessAbstract
Neonicotinoid insecticides are successfully applied to control pests in a variety of agricultural crops; however, they may not only affect pest insects but also non-target organisms such as pollinators. This review summarizes, for the first time, 15 years of research on the hazards of neonicotinoids to bees including honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. The focus of the paper is on three different key aspects determining the risks of neonicotinoid field concentrations for bee populations: (1) the environmental neonicotinoid residue levels in plants, bees and bee products in relation to pesticide application, (2) the reported side-effects with special attention for sublethal effects, and (3) the usefulness for the evaluation of neonicotinoids of an already existing risk assessment scheme for systemic compounds. Although environmental residue levels of neonicotinoids were found to be lower than acute/chronic toxicity levels, there is still a lack of reliable data as most analyses were conducted near the detection limit and for only few crops. Many laboratory studies described lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on the foraging behavior, and learning and memory abilities of bees, while no effects were observed in field studies at field-realistic dosages. The proposed risk assessment scheme for systemic compounds was shown to be applicable to assess the risk for side-effects of neonicotinoids as it considers the effect on different life stages and different levels of biological organization (organism versus colony). Future research studies should be conducted with field-realistic concentrations, relevant exposure and evaluation durations. Molecular markers may be used to improve risk assessment by a better understanding of the mode of action (interaction with receptors) of neonicotinoids in bees leading to the identification of environmentally safer compounds.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Decline and conservation of bumble bees
Goulson, D., Lye, G. C., & Darvill, B. (2008) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454 · Cited by 1,183 · cited 2×
“parallel decrease of plant species, or vice versa (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; National Research Council of the National Academies 2007; Goulson et al. 2008).”
Background
Cited by
Wildlife Ecotoxicology of Pesticides: Can We Track Effects to the Population Level and Beyond?
Köhler, H.-R., & Triebskorn, R. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1237591 · Cited by 911
Main, A. R., Headley, J. V., Peru, K. M., Michel, N. L., Cessna, A. J., & Morrissey, C. A. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092821 · Cited by 365
Agrochemical pesticide production, trade, and hazard: Narrowing the information gap in Colombia
Valbuena, D., Cely-Santos, M., & Obregón, D. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112141 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Blacquière, T., Smagghe, G., van Gestel, C. A. M., & Mommaerts, V.
- Venue
- Ecotoxicology
- Published
- 2012-02-18
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 973-992
- ISSN
- 0963-9292 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3017
- OpenAlex
- W2107753566
- Cited by
- 1,039
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 65.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10646-012-0863-x
- The paper
- Blacquière, T., Smagghe, G., van Gestel, C. A. M., & Mommaerts, V. (2012). Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-012-0863-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.