Neonicotinoid and atrazine content in forage sources available to honey bees found near corn field margins collected around and after neonicotinoid-treated seed planting in southwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, flowering plant sources available to honey bees were surveyed around the perimeter of 18 corn fields located in southwestern Ontario. The forage resources identified were compared to the taxonomic composition of bee-collected pollen from hives placed near the corn fields during seven sampling periods from late April, around neonicotinoid-treated seed planting, until late June. During planting, honey bees collected pollen from mainly woody species with Acer spp., Salix spp., Populus spp., and Rosaceae predominating. Brassicaceae and Taraxacum spp. were the most frequently recovered herbaceous plant sources throughout May, albeit at low frequency. By mid-June, bees shifted to collecting pollen mainly from herbaceous flowers. Neonicotinoid and atrazine content were measured in all bee-collected pollen and two herbaceous ( T. officinale and Barbarea vulgaris) and two tree species ( Salix spp. and Crateagus spp.) that were used as indicator plants to assess the potential exposure of bees originating from this ecosystem at different timings from 2013 to 2015. Neonicotinoid residues in bee-collected pollen ranged from 1.6 to 62.1 ng/g, which were greater than observed in pollen-producing organs from indicator plants. During corn pollination, no tree pollen was found, and pollen from Trifolium, Lotus, and Parthenocissus spp. was preferred. Corn and soybean pollen was less favoured, collected only when other species were not available; corn pollen generally had concentrations less than 5 ng/g of total neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoid-contaminated pollen was collected from bee forage resources near agricultural fields, but exposure concentration was greater from other sources such as field and planter dust during foraging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".