The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Field realistic doses of pesticide imidacloprid reduce bumblebee pollen foraging efficiency
Open accessAbstract
Bumblebees and other pollinators provide a vital ecosystem service for the agricultural sector. Recent studies however have suggested that exposure to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides in flowering crops has sub-lethal effects on the bumblebee workforce, and hence in reducing queen production. The mechanism behind reduced nest performance, however, remains unclear. Here we use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to test whether exposure to a low, field realistic dose (0.7 ppb in sugar water and 6 ppb in pollen) of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, reduces worker foraging efficiency. Whilst the nectar foraging efficiency of bees treated with imidacloprid was not significantly different than that of control bees, treated bees brought back pollen less often than control bees (40 % of trips vs 63 % trips, respectively) and, where pollen was collected, treated bees brought back 31 % less pollen per hour than controls. This study demonstrates that field-realistic doses of these pesticides substantially impacts on foraging ability of bumblebee workers when collecting pollen, and we suggest that this provides a causal mechanism behind reduced queen production in imidacloprid exposed colonies.
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
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
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 1×
“Agricultural intensification has been proposed as a primary driver behind the decline of bumblebees, with habitat loss as well as increased pesticide use believed to be two important causal factors (Goulson et al. 2008).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post 2013
Wood, T. J., & Goulson, D. (2017) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x · Cited by 623
Self-citationNeonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop pollination services provided by bumblebees
Stanley, D. A., Garratt, M. P. D., Wickens, J. B., Wickens, V. J., Potts, S. G., & Raine, N. E. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature16167 · Cited by 369
Pisa, L., Goulson, D., Yang, E.-C., Gibbons, D., Sánchez-Bayo, F., Mitchell, E., Aebi, A., van der Sluijs, J., MacQuarrie, C. J. K., Giorio, C., et al. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-017-0341-3 · Cited by 308
Self-citationNeonicotinoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermoregulation
Crall, J. D., Switzer, C. M., Oppenheimer, R. L., Ford Versypt, A. N., Dey, B., Brown, A., Eyster, M., Guérin, C., Pierce, N. E., Combes, S. A., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat1598 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- Feltham, H., Park, K., & Goulson, D.
- Venue
- Ecotoxicology
- Published
- 2014-01-22
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 317-323
- ISSN
- 0963-9292 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3017
- OpenAlex
- W1985455806
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Field realistic doses of pesticide imidacloprid reduce bumblebee pollen foraging efficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10646-014-1189-7
- The paper
- Feltham, H., Park, K., & Goulson, D. (2014). Field realistic doses of pesticide imidacloprid reduce bumblebee pollen foraging efficiency. Ecotoxicology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-014-1189-7
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.