The DOI matches its Crossref record; 117 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post 2013
Open accessAbstract
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Neonicotinoid pesticides were first introduced in the mid-1990s and since then their use has grown rapidly so that they have become the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, with the majority being used as seed coatings. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble, and so a small quantity applied to a seed will dissolve when in contact with water in the soil and be taken up by the roots of the developing plant. Once inside the plant it becomes systemic and is found in vascular tissues and foliage, providing protection against herbivorous insects. This prophylactic use of neonicotinoids has become extremely widespread on a wide range of arable crops across much of the developed world. However, only approximately 5% of the neonicotinoid active ingredient is taken up by crop plants and most instead disperses into the wider environment. Since the mid-2000s numerous studies have raised concerns that neonicotinoids may be having a negative effect on non-target organisms. In particular, neonicotinoids were associated with mass poisoning events of honeybees and were shown to have serious negative effects on honeybee and bumblebee fitness when consumed. In response to this growing body of evidence, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to produce risk assessments for the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam and their impact on bees. These risk assessments, published in January 2013, conclude that the use of these compounds on certain flowering crops poses a high ris k to bees. On the basis of these findings, the European Union adopted a partial ban on these substances in May 2013 which came into force on 1 st December 2013. The purpose of this review is to collate and summarise scientific evidence published since 2013 that investigates the impact of neonicotinoids on non-target organisms and to bring it into one place to aid informed decision making. Due to international concern over the unintended impacts of neonicotinoids on wildlife, this topic has received a great deal of scientific attention in this three year period. As the restrictions were put in place because of the risk neonicotinoids pose to bees, much of the recent research work has naturally focussed on this group. Risks to bees Broadly, the EFSA risk assessments addressed risks of exposure to bees from neonicotinoids through various routes and the direct lethal and sublethal impact of neonicotinoid exposure. New scientific evidence is available in all of these areas, and it is possible to comment on the change in the scientific evidence since 2013 compared to the EFSA reports. This process is not meant to be a formal assessment of the risk posed by neonicotinoids in the manner of that conducted by EFSA. Instead it aims to summarise how the new evidence has changed our understanding of the likely risks to bees; is it lower, similar or greater than the risk perceived in 2013. With reference to the EFSA 2013 risk assessments baseline, advances in each considered area and their impact on the original assessment can be summarised thus: Risk of exposure from pollen and nectar of treated flowering crops. The EFSA reports calculated typical exposure from flowering crops treated with neonicotinoids as seed dressings. Considerably more data are now available in this area, with new studies broadly supporting the calculated exposure values. For bees, flowering crops pose a Risk Unchanged to that reported by EFSA 2013a. Risk from non-flowering crops and cropping stages prior to flowering. Non-flowering crops were considered to pose no risk to bees. No new studies have demonstrated that these non-flowering crops pose a direct risk to bees. They remain a Risk Unchanged . Risk of exposure from the drilling of treated seed and subsequent dust drift. Despite modification in seed drilling technology, available studies suggest that dust drift continues to occur, and that dust drift still represents a source of acute exposure and so is best considered a Risk Unchanged . Risk of exposure from guttation fluid. Based on available evidence this was considered a low-risk exposure path by EFSA 2013a. New data have not changed this position and so it remains a Risk Unchanged . Risk of exposure from and uptake of neonicotinoids in non-crop plants. Uptake of neonicotinoids by non-target plants was considered likely to be negligible, though a data gap was identified. Many studies have since been published demonstrating extensive uptake of neonicotinoids and their presence in the pollen, nectar and foliage of wild plants. Bees collecting pollen from neonicotinoid-treated crops can generally be expected to be exposed to the highest neonicotinoid concentrations, but non-trivial quantities of neonicotinoids are also present in pollen and nectar collected from wild plants, and this source of exposure may be much more prolonged than the flowering period of the crop. Exposure from non-target plants clearly represents a Greater Risk .
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
Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers
Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías, C., & Rotheray, E. L. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1255957 · Cited by 4,033
Self-citationOverview of the Status and Global Strategy for Neonicotinoids
Jeschke, P., Nauen, R., Schindler, M., & Elbert, A. (2011) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf101303g · Cited by 1,867
REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides
Goulson, D. (2013) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12111 · Cited by 1,828
Self-citationSystemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites
Simon-Delso, N., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L. P., Bonmatin, J. M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D. W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., et al. (2015) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3470-y · Cited by 1,820
Self-citationA Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees
Henry, M., Béguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J.-F., Aupinel, P., Aptel, J., Tchamitchian, S., & Decourtye, A. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1215039 · Cited by 1,474
Morrissey, C. A., Mineau, P., Devries, J. H., Sanchez-Bayo, F., Liess, M., Cavallaro, M. C., & Liber, K. (2015) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.024 · Cited by 1,401
Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
Bonmatin, J.-M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D. P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E. A. D., et al. (2015) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3332-7 · Cited by 1,372
Self-citationNeonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production
Whitehorn, P. R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F. L., & Goulson, D. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1215025 · Cited by 1,290
Self-citationSeed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees
Rundlöf, M., Andersson, G. K. S., Bommarco, R., Fries, I., Hederström, V., Herbertsson, L., Jonsson, O., Klatt, B. K., Pedersen, T. R., Yourstone, J., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14420 · Cited by 1,087
Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations
Hallmann, C. A., Foppen, R. P. B., van Turnhout, C. A. M., de Kroon, H., & Jongejans, E. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13531 · Cited by 1,052
Cited by
Global Trends in Bumble Bee Health
Cameron, S. A., & Sadd, B. M. (2020) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-011118-111847 · Cited by 367
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
Synergistic insights into pesticide persistence and microbial dynamics for bioremediation
Ray, S. S., Parihar, K., Goyal, N., & Mahapatra, D. M. (2024) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2024.119290 · Cited by 37
Pietrzak, D., Wątor, K., Pękała, D., Wójcik, J., Chochorek, A., Kmiecik, E., & Kania, J. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B · doi:10.1080/03601234.2019.1574173 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Wood, T. J., & Goulson, D.
- Venue
- Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Published
- 2017-06-07
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 17285-17325
- ISSN
- 0944-1344 (ISSN-L)
- 1614-7499
- OpenAlex
- W2951994340
- Cited by
- 623
- References
- 117
- FWCI
- 45.41
- 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: The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post 2013. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x
- The paper
- Wood, T. J., & Goulson, D. (2017). The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post 2013. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9240-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.