↓ Skip to main content

Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, September 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 (#25 of 12,536)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
13 policy sources
twitter
65 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
7 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
1277 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We assessed the state of knowledge regarding the effects of large-scale pollution with neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on non-target invertebrate species of terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. A large section of the assessment is dedicated to the state of knowledge on sublethal effects on honeybees (Apis mellifera) because this important pollinator is the most studied non-target invertebrate species. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Lumbricidae (earthworms), Apoidae sensu lato (bumblebees, solitary bees) and the section "other invertebrates" review available studies on the other terrestrial species. The sections on freshwater and marine species are rather short as little is known so far about the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on the diverse invertebrate fauna of these widely exposed habitats. For terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species, the known effects of neonicotinoid pesticides and fipronil are described ranging from organismal toxicology and behavioural effects to population-level effects. For earthworms, freshwater and marine species, the relation of findings to regulatory risk assessment is described. Neonicotinoid insecticides exhibit very high toxicity to a wide range of invertebrates, particularly insects, and field-realistic exposure is likely to result in both lethal and a broad range of important sublethal impacts. There is a major knowledge gap regarding impacts on the grand majority of invertebrates, many of which perform essential roles enabling healthy ecosystem functioning. The data on the few non-target species on which field tests have been performed are limited by major flaws in the outdated test protocols. Despite large knowledge gaps and uncertainties, enough knowledge exists to conclude that existing levels of pollution with neonicotinoids and fipronil resulting from presently authorized uses frequently exceed the lowest observed adverse effect concentrations and are thus likely to have large-scale and wide ranging negative biological and ecological impacts on a wide range of non-target invertebrates in terrestrial, aquatic, marine and benthic habitats.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Other 6 <1%
Unknown 1252 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 185 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 182 14%
Student > Bachelor 163 13%
Researcher 163 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 55 4%
Other 149 12%
Unknown 380 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 420 33%
Environmental Science 186 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 4%
Chemistry 45 4%
Engineering 23 2%
Other 120 9%
Unknown 431 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 216. 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 06 July 2026.
All research outputs
#220,801
of 33,054,915 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#25
of 12,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,655
of 281,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#3
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,054,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,536 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 281,863 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 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 97% of its contemporaries.