↓ Skip to main content

Pathogens, Pests, and Economics: Drivers of Honey Bee Colony Declines and Losses

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 706)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
194 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
396 Mendeley
Title
Pathogens, Pests, and Economics: Drivers of Honey Bee Colony Declines and Losses
Published in
EcoHealth, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10393-013-0870-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristine M. Smith, Elizabeth H. Loh, Melinda K. Rostal, Carlos M. Zambrana-Torrelio, Luciana Mendiola, Peter Daszak

Abstract

The Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is responsible for ecosystem services (pollination) worth US$215 billion annually worldwide and the number of managed colonies has increased 45% since 1961. However, in Europe and the U.S., two distinct phenomena; long-term declines in colony numbers and increasing annual colony losses, have led to significant interest in their causes and environmental implications. The most important drivers of a long-term decline in colony numbers appear to be socioeconomic and political pressure on honey production. In contrast, annual colony losses seem to be driven mainly by the spread of introduced pathogens and pests, and management problems due to a long-term intensification of production and the transition from large numbers of small apiaries to fewer, larger operations. We conclude that, while other causal hypotheses have received substantial interest, the role of pests, pathogens, and management issues requires increased attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 396 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Mexico 3 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 380 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 16%
Student > Bachelor 65 16%
Student > Master 61 15%
Researcher 48 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 58 15%
Unknown 81 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 187 47%
Environmental Science 42 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 2%
Other 32 8%
Unknown 95 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2021.
All research outputs
#592,492
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#41
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,840
of 307,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.