↓ Skip to main content

Sublethal effects of clothianidin and Nosema spp. on the longevity and foraging activity of free flying honey bees

Overview of attention for article published in Ecotoxicology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Sublethal effects of clothianidin and Nosema spp. on the longevity and foraging activity of free flying honey bees
Published in
Ecotoxicology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10646-018-1925-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Odemer, Lisa Nilles, Nadine Linder, Peter Rosenkranz

Abstract

Neonicotinoids alone or in combination with pathogens are considered to be involved in the worldwide weakening of honey bees. We here present a new approach for testing sublethal and/or synergistic effects in free flying colonies. In our experiment individually marked honey bees were kept in free flying mini-hives and chronically exposed to sublethal doses of the neonicotinoid clothianidin. Additional groups of bees were challenged with Nosema infections or with combinations of the pesticide and pathogens. Longevity and flight activity of the differentially treated bees were monitored for a period of 18 days. In contrast to previous laboratory studies, no effect of the neonicotinoid treatment on mortality or flight activity could be observed. Although the lifespan of Nosema infected bees were significantly reduced compared to non-infected bees a combination of pesticide and pathogen did not reveal any synergistic effect. Our results indicate that individual bees are less impaired by neonicotinoids if kept within the social environment of the colony. The effect of such a "social buffering" should be considered in future risk assessments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 35%
Environmental Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Engineering 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 September 2022.
All research outputs
#13,235,906
of 23,652,325 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#441
of 1,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,046
of 333,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,652,325 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,501 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 333,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.