Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 587

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees)

Open access
European Food Safety Authority·2013·EFSA Journal
DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Guidance Document is intended to provide guidance for notifiers and authorities in the context of the review of plant protection products (PPPs) and their active substances under Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. The scientific opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees) (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), 2012a) provided the scientific basis for the development of the Guidance Document. Specific Protection Goals were agreed in consultation with the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. The Guidance Document suggests a tiered risk assessment scheme with a simple and cost-effective first tier to more complex higher tier studies under field conditions. Each of the tiers will have to ensure that the appropriate level of protection is achieved.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. Alix, 2010, Guidance for the assessment of risks to bees from the use of plant protection products under the framework of Council Directive 91/414 and Regulation 1107/2009, EPPO Bulletin, 40, 196, 10.1111/j.1365-2338.2010.02376.x · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2338.2010.02376.x
  2. Balderrama, 1992, Metabolic‐Rate during Foraging in the Honeybee, Journal of Comparative Physiology B‐Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology, 162, 440, 10.1007/BF00258967 · doi:10.1007/bf00258967
  3. Becher, 2010, Brood temperature, task division and colony survival in honeybees: A model, Ecological Modelling, 221, 769, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.11.016 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.11.016
  4. Bosch, 2002, Developing and establishing bee species as crop pollinators: the example of Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit trees, Bulletin of Entomological Research, 92, 3, 10.1079/BER2001139 · doi:10.1079/ber2001139
  5. Bosch, 2008, Production of undersized offspring in a solitary bee, Animal Behaviour, 75, 809, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.018 · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.018
  6. Bosch, 2008, Bee Pollination in Agricultural Ecosystems
  7. Butler, 1944, The influence of various physical and biological factors of the environment on honeybee activity. An examination of the relationship between activity and nectar concentration and abundance, Journal of Experimental Biology, 21, 5, 10.1242/jeb.21.1-2.5 · doi:10.1242/jeb.21.1-2.5
  8. Candolfi MP, Barrett KL, Campbell PJ, Forster R, Grandy N, Huet MC, Lewis G, Oomen PA, Schmuck R and Vogt H, 2001. Guidance document on regulatory testing and risk assessment procedures for plant pretection products with non‐target arthropods. Proceedings from the ESCORT 2 workshop. Proceedings of the SETAC, Pensacola, 46.
  9. Contessi, 2005, Le api
  10. Corbet, 2003, Nectar sugar content: estimating standing crop and secretion rate in the field, Apidologie, 34, 1, 10.1051/apido:2002049 · doi:10.1051/apido:2002049
  11. Costa, 2012, A Europe‐Wide Experiment for Assessing the Impact of Genotype‐Environment Interactions on the Vitality and Performance of Honey Bee Colonies: Experimental Design and Trait Evaluation, Journal of Apicultural Science, 56, 147, 10.2478/v10289-012-0015-9 · doi:10.2478/v10289-012-0015-9
  12. da Silva‐Matos, 2000, Worker life tables, survivorship, and longevity in colonies of Bombus (Fervidobombus) atratus (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Revista De Biologia Tropical, 48, 657
  13. Decourtye, 2005, Comparative sublethal toxicity of nine pesticides on olfactory learning performances of the honeybee Apis mellifera, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 48, 242, 10.1007/s00244-003-0262-7 · doi:10.1007/s00244-003-0262-7
  14. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2004, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant health, Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from EFSA on the appropriateness of using the current FOCUS surface water scenarios for estimating exposure for risk assessment in aquatic ecotoxicology in the context of Council Directive 91/414/EEC, The EFSA Journal 2004, 145, 1
  15. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Health, Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) on a request from EFSA related to the evaluation of pirimicarb, The EFSA Journal 2005, 240, 1
  16. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from the European Commission on the risks associated with an increase of the MRL for dieldrin on courgettes, The EFSA Journal 2007, 554, 1
  17. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from the European Commission on acute dietary intake assessment of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables, The EFSA Journal 2007, 538, 1
  18. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2008, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection products and their Residues on a request from EFSA to evaluate the suitability of existing methodologies and, if appropriate, the identification of new approaches to assess cumulative and synergistic risks from pesticides to human health with a view to set MRLs for those pesticides in the frame of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, The EFSA Journal, 704, 1
  19. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2008, Revision of Guidance Document under Council Directive 91/414/EEC (SANCO/4145/2000 – final of 25 September 2002). Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant protection products and their Residues (PPR) on a request from EFSA on the Science behind the Guidance Document on Risk Assessment for birds and mammals, The EFSA Journal 2008, 734, 1
  20. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), 2012, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues on a request from EFSA on the science behind the guidance for scenario selection and scenario parameterisation for predicting environmental concentrations of plant protection products in soil, The EFSA Journal, 10, 2562, 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2562 · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2562
  21. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2003, Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products. Chapter 10: Honeybees, EPPO Bulletin, 33, 141, 10.1046/j.1365-2338.2003.00619.x · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2338.2003.00619.x
  22. FOCUS (Forum for the Co‐ordination of Pesticide Fate Models and their Use), 2007, Landscape And Mitigation Factors In Aquatic Risk Assessment, 2, 436
  23. FOCUS (Forum for the Co‐ordination of Pesticide Fate Models and their Use), 2007, Landscape and mitigation factors in aquatic risk assessment, 1, 169
  24. Free, 1958, Observations on the temperature regulation and food consumption of honeybees (Apis mellifera), Journal of Experimental Biology, 35, 930, 10.1242/jeb.35.4.930 · doi:10.1242/jeb.35.4.930
  25. Georgiadis, 2012, Dust drift during sowing of maize‐effects on honey bees, Julius‐Kuhn‐Archiv, 437, 134
  26. Gregorc, 1999, In situ localization of heat‐shock and histone proteins in honey‐bee (Apis mellifera L.) larvae infected with Paenibacillus larvae, Cell Biology International, 23, 211, 10.1006/cbir.1999.0344 · doi:10.1006/cbir.1999.0344
  27. Haydak, 1943, Larval food and development of castes in the honeybee, Journal of Economic Entomology, 36, 778, 10.1093/jee/36.5.778 · doi:10.1093/jee/36.5.778
  28. Henry M, Beguin M, Requier F, Rollin O, Odoux JF, Aupinel P, Aptel J, Tchamitchian S and Decourtye A, 2012b. Response to Comment on “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees”. Science, 337. · doi:10.1126/science.1224930
  29. Huijsmans JFM and van de Zande JV, 2011. Workshop harmonisation of drift and drift reducing technologies for evaluation and authorization of plant protection products. Report 390 Plant Research International. Proceedings of the Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, Wageningen, 1–2 December 2010.
  30. Hull, 2006, Sequential analysis of lines of evidence – an advanced weight of evidence approach for ecological risk assessment, Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2, 302, 10.1002/ieam.5630020401 · doi:10.1002/ieam.5630020401
  31. Imdorf, 1987, A Test of the Method of Estimation of Brood Areas and Number of Worker Bees in Free‐Flying Colonies, Apidologie, 18, 137, 10.1051/apido:19870204 · doi:10.1051/apido:19870204
  32. Karise, 2007, Impact of alpha‐cypermethrin on honey bees foraging on spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus) flowers in field conditions(+), Pest Management Science, 63, 1085, 10.1002/ps.1445 · doi:10.1002/ps.1445
  33. Khoury, 2011, A Quantitative Model of Honey Bee Colony Population Dynamics, PloS one, 6, e18491, 10.1371/journal.pone.0018491 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018491
  34. Koch, 1997, Exposure of honey bees during pesticide application under field conditions, Apidologie, 28, 439, 10.1051/apido:19970610 · doi:10.1051/apido:19970610
  35. Kronenberg, 1982, Colonial Thermoregulation in Honey Bees (Apis‐Mellifera), Journal of Comparative Physiology, 148, 65, 10.1007/BF00688889 · doi:10.1007/bf00688889
  36. Ladas, 1972, Der Einfluss Verschiedener Konstitutions‐ Und Umweltfaktoren auf die Anfalligkeit der Honigbiene (Apis mellifica L.) gegenuber zwei Insektiziden Pflanzenschutzmitteln, Apidologie, 3, 55, 10.1051/apido:19720103 · doi:10.1051/apido:19720103
  37. Ladurner, 2008, Foraging and nesting behavior of Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera: megachilidae) in the presence of fungicides: Cage studies, Journal of Economic Entomology, 101, 647, 10.1603/0022-0493(2008)101[647:FANBOO]2.0.CO;2 · doi:10.1603/0022-0493(2008)101[647:fanboo]2.0.co;2
  38. Ladurner, 2003, A method to feed individual bees (Hymenoptera : Apiformes) known amounts of pesticides, Apidologie, 34, 597, 10.1051/apido:2003055 · doi:10.1051/apido:2003055
  39. Leistra, 1977, Computed Effects of Adsorption‐Kinetics on Pesticide Movement in Soils, Journal of Soil Science, 28, 340, 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1977.tb02242.x · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1977.tb02242.x
  40. Luttik, 2011, Variation in the level of protection afforded to birds and crustaceans exposed to different pesticides under standard risk assessment procedures, Integrated environmental assessment and management, 7, 459, 10.1002/ieam.183 · doi:10.1002/ieam.183
  41. Maccagnani, 2003, Osmia cornuta (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae) as a pollinator of pear (Pyrus communis): fruit‐ and seed‐set, Apidologie, 34, 207, 10.1051/apido:2003009 · doi:10.1051/apido:2003009
  42. Madelin, 2004, Opening address to the Inaugural Joint Meeting of the members of the Non‐Food Scientific Committees
  43. Marletto, 2003, Laboratory assessment of pesticide toxicity to bumble bees, Bulletin of Insectology, 56, 155
  44. Meled, 1998, Seasonal variations in susceptibility of Apis mellifera to the synergistic action of prochloraz and deltamethrin, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 17, 2517, 10.1002/etc.5620171220 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620171220
  45. Mommaerts, 2010, Risk assessment for side‐effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior, Ecotoxicology, 19, 207, 10.1007/s10646-009-0406-2 · doi:10.1007/s10646-009-0406-2
  46. Nicolson, 2012, Chemical composition of the ‘low quality’ pollen of sunflower (Helianthus annuus, Asteraceae), Apidologie, 44, 144, 10.1007/s13592-012-0166-5 · doi:10.1007/s13592-012-0166-5
  47. Olesen MH and Jensen PK 2013. External Scientific Report submitted to EFSA. Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception. Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2011‐00767. · doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.en-438
  48. Peters, 1977, Systematik und Zoogeographie der west‐palëarktischen Arten von Osmia's str., Monosmia, und Orientosmia, Senckenbergiana biologica (Frankfurt a. M.), 58, 287
  49. Prǐdal, 1996, Laboratory rearing and nutrition of young queens of Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris L.) from emergence to diapause, 14, 125
  50. Rueppell, 2009, Honey bee (Apis mellifera) workers live longer in small than in large colonies, Experimental Gerontology, 44, 447, 10.1016/j.exger.2009.04.003 · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2009.04.003
  51. Sagili, 2005, Effects of soybean trypsin inhibitor on hypopharyngeal gland protein content, total midgut protease activity and survival of the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.), Journal of Insect Physiology, 51, 953, 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2005.04.003 · doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2005.04.003
  52. Schippers, 2006, Lifetime performance in foraging honeybees: behaviour and physiology, Journal of Experimental Biology, 209, 3828, 10.1242/jeb.02450 · doi:10.1242/jeb.02450
  53. Schmidhempel, 1991, Worker mortality and colony development in bumblebees, Bombus lucorum (L.) (Hymenoptera, Apidae), Bulletin de la société entomologique Suisse, 64, 93
  54. Seeley, 1981, Regulation of temperature in the nests of social insects
  55. Sgolastra, 2012, Effects of neonicotinoid dust from maize seed‐dressing on honey bees, Bulletin of Insectology, 65, 273
  56. Sinclair, 2009, Predicting the environmental fate and ecotoxicological and toxicological effects of pesticide transformation products
  57. Skerl, 2010, Heat shock proteins and cell death in situ localisation in hypopharyngeal glands of honeybee (Apis mellifera carnica) workers after imidacloprid or coumaphos treatment, Apidologie, 41, 73, 10.1051/apido/2009051 · doi:10.1051/apido/2009051
  58. Stelzer, 2010, Effects of aposematic coloration on predation risk in bumblebees? A comparison between differently coloured populations, with consideration of the ultraviolet, Journal of Zoology, 282, 75, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00709.x · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00709.x
  59. Suchail, 2000, Characteristics of imidacloprid toxicity in two Apis mellifera subspecies, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 19, 1901, 10.1002/etc.5620190726 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620190726
  60. Sur R, Gourlay V, Fent G, Schmitt W and Goerlitz G, 2012. Determination of plant uptake factors for pesticide fate modelling. Proceedings of the SETAC conference, Berlin.
  61. Szentes, 2003, Miért nem mézel a napraforgó? II, Méhészet, 51, 14
  62. Tasei JN, Sabik H, Piratsu L, Langiu E, Blanche JM, Fournier J and Taglioni JP, 1993. A sequential study on the effects of deltamethrin (Decis CE) on bumble bees. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium Hazard of Pesticides to Bees, Wageningen, The Netherlands, October 1993.
  63. Thompson HM and Thorbahn D, 2009. Review of honeybee pesticide poisoning incidents in Europe ‐ evaluation of the hazard quotient approach for risk assessment. Julius‐Kuhn‐Archiv, 103–108.
  64. Thompson, 2010, Risk assessment for honey bees and pesticides ‐ recent developments and ‘new issues’, Pest Management Science, 66, 1157, 10.1002/ps.1994 · doi:10.1002/ps.1994
  65. Torchio, 1973, Relative toxicity of insecticides to the honey bee, alkali bee, and alfalfa leafcutting bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae), Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 46, 446
  66. van der Steen, 2001, Review of the methods to determine the hazard and toxicity of pesticides to bumblebees, Apidologie, 32, 399, 10.1051/apido:2001139 · doi:10.1051/apido:2001139
  67. Van der Steen JJM, Gretenkord C and Schaefer H, 1996. Method to determine the acute oral/contact LD50 of pesticides for bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Hazard of Pesticides to Bees, Braunschweig, Germany, 17–19 September 1996.
  68. van der Zande, 2012, Spray drift for assessment of exposure of aquatic organisms to plant protection products in the Netherlands, Report, 419, 88
  69. Verbruggen EMJ and van den Brink PJ 2010. Review of recent literature concerning mixture toxicity of pesticides to aquatic organisms. RIVM report 601400001. 34 pp.
  70. Verdonck, 2003, Limitations of current risk characterization methods in probabilistic environmental risk assessment, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22, 2209, 10.1897/02-435 · doi:10.1897/02-435
  71. WHO/FAO (World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization) , 2002. Manual on development and use of FAO and WHO specifications for pesticides. First edition, FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 173.
  72. Winston, 1987, The biology of the honey bee
  73. Wykes, 1953, The sugar content of nectars, Biochemical Journal, 53, 294, 10.1042/bj0530294 · doi:10.1042/bj0530294
  74. Zajácz, 2011, Nectar production and some site‐relataed issues of sunflower hybrids under different agro‐ecological conditions

Cited by

See all 587

Metadata

Authors
Authority, E. F. S.
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07
Volume
11
Issue
7
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295
OpenAlex
W2591296938
Cited by
587
References
49
FWCI
33.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1 (tdm, 792 d)

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: Guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295
The paper
Authority, E. F. S. (2013). Guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295

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.