↓ Skip to main content

Underestimating neonicotinoid exposure: how extent and magnitude may be affected by land-use change

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Underestimating neonicotinoid exposure: how extent and magnitude may be affected by land-use change
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11356-016-6159-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesko Zimmermann, Jane C. Stout

Abstract

Potential detrimental impacts of neonicotinoids on non-target organisms, especially bees, have been subject to a wide debate and the subsequent ban of three neonicotinoids by the EU. While recent research has fortified concerns regarding the effects of neonicotinoids on ecosystem service (ES) providers, potential impacts have been considered negligible in systems with a relatively small proportion of arable land and thus lower the use of these pesticides. In this paper we argue that there is not sufficient information to assess magnitude and extent of neonicotinoid application, as well as potential non-target impacts on ES providers in grass-dominated systems with frequent land-use change. Using Ireland as an example, we show that the highly dynamic agricultural landscape, in conjunction with estimated persistence times of neonicotinoids in soils, may lead to a much larger area (18.6 ± 0.6 % of the Irish agricultural area) exposed to these pesticides than initially assumed. Furthermore we present a number of important gaps in current research regarding the impacts of neonicotinoids on ES providers in such systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Master 13 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Researcher 9 14%
Professor 3 5%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 45%
Environmental Science 11 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,264,402
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#750
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,493
of 407,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#15
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 407,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 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 91% of its contemporaries.