Determination of neonicotinoids and butenolide residues in avian and insect pollinators and their ambient environment in Western Canada (2017, 2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the spatial, and temporal variation and potential sources of pesticide concentrations, primarily neonicotinoid insecticides, in hummingbirds in western Canada, we sampled their cloacal fluid from sites in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, Canada in 2017-2018. At a sub-sample of those sites, we also measured pesticides in honey bee (Apis mellifera) nectar, water, and sediment. We collected cloacal fluid from 5 species of hummingbirds (n = 26 sites) in British Columbia (BC) and Saskatchewan, Canada, and nectar from honey bee hives (n = 4 sites), water and sediment (n = 18 sites) in the Fraser Valley, BC. Among those, multiple types of samples were collected at 6 sites. We report the first measurement of flupyradifurone, a relatively new butenolide insecticide, in wildlife which was detected at 4.58 ng/mL in hummingbird cloacal fluid and 2.18 ng/g in honey bee nectar. We also detected three other neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin, acetamiprid) and one metabolite desnitro-imidacloprid, and MGK264, a pesticide synergist, in our samples. Among 49 samples of cloacal fluid from rufous (Selasphorus rufus), Anna's (Calypte anna), calliope (Selasphorus calliope) black-chinned (Archilocus alexandri) and ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilocus colubris), 26.5% (n = 13) contained neonicotinoids. Maximum pesticide concentrations in hummingbirds, water and sediment were found in samples collected in the Fraser Valley, BC within 0.5 km of conventionally sprayed blueberry fields (CSBF) but highest levels in honey bee nectar were detected at a site 1.5 km from a CSBF. Imidacloprid in honey bee nectar at one site exceeded concentrations (>1 ng/g) that can sublethally affect worker bee foraging efficiency. In water, imidacloprid concentrations at another site exceeded Canadian guidelines (230 ng/mL) for the protection of aquatic invertebrates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".