Lethal and sub‐lethal effects of spinosad on bumble bees (<i>Bombus impatiens</i> Cresson)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments of new families of pesticides and growing awareness of the importance of wild pollinators for crop pollination have stimulated interest in potential effects of novel pesticides on wild bees. Yet pesticide toxicity studies on wild bees remain rare, and few studies have included long-term monitoring of bumble bee colonies or testing of foraging ability after pesticide exposure. Larval bees feeding on exogenous pollen and exposed to pesticides during development may result in lethal or sub-lethal effects during the adult stage. We tested the effects of a naturally derived biopesticide, spinosad, on bumble bee (Bombus impatiens Cresson) colony health, including adult mortality, brood development, weights of emerging bees and foraging efficiency of adults that underwent larval development during exposure to spinosad. We monitored colonies from an early stage, over a 10-week period, and fed spinosad to colonies in pollen at four levels: control, 0.2, 0.8 and 8.0 mg kg(-1), during weeks 2 through 5 of the experiment. At concentrations that bees would likely encounter in pollen in the wild (0.2-0.8 mg kg(-1)) we detected minimal negative effects to bumble bee colonies. Brood and adult mortality was high at 8.0 mg kg(-1) spinosad, about twice the level that bees would be exposed to in a 'worst case' field scenario, resulting in colony death two to four weeks after initial pesticide exposure. At more realistic concentrations there were potentially important sub-lethal effects. Adult worker bees exposed to spinosad during larval development at 0.8 mg kg(-1) were slower foragers on artificial complex flower arrays than bees from low or no spinosad treated colonies. Inclusion of similar sub-lethal assays to detect effects of pesticides on pollinators would aid in development of environmentally responsible pest management strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".