Toxicity of Insecticide-Contaminated Soil Used in the Treatment of Cotton Seeds to Bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insecticide-treated cotton seeds can pose risks to Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758 populations during crop establishment if chemical residues reach these insects near agricultural fields via dust drift produced during planting. However, the treatment of seeds with insecticides is essential to protect cotton plants from damage caused by pests, including thrips and aphids. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the toxic effects (acute toxicity) of soil dust from cotton fields planted with insecticide-treated seeds on A. mellifera adults using a toxicity assay developed in the laboratory. Forager honeybees were maintained in 700-ml plastic cages with 7 g of surface soil where insecticide-treated cotton seeds were sown (270 g a.i. clothianidin, 270 g a.i. imidacloprid, 210 g a.i. thiamethoxam, and 75 g a.i. fipronil/100 kg of seeds, and an untreated group). Ten bees were placed in each cage. The experimental design was randomized, with five treatments and twelve replicates. The mortality rate was evaluated during the entire assay. Data were transformed to x + 0.5 and compared with a regression analysis and contrast test. The linear regression model revealed a significant relationship between bee mortality and exposure time. The mortality rate gradually increased as time progressed in all treatments and the control group. The contrast test did not reveal significant differences between the insecticide and control groups. Thus, residues of the products tested, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, imidacloprid, and fipronil, did not influence the mortality of A. mellifera adults as a result of exposure to soil contaminated with insecticide-treated seeds.
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".