↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honey bee colonies: a response to the field study by Pilling et al. (2013)

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Sciences Europe, November 2015
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 (#40 of 602)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Effects of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honey bee colonies: a response to the field study by Pilling et al. (2013)
Published in
Environmental Sciences Europe, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12302-015-0060-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Paul Hoppe, Anton Safer, Vanessa Amaral-Rogers, Jean-Marc Bonmatin, Dave Goulson, Randolph Menzel, Boris Baer

Abstract

Our assessment of the multi-year overwintering study by Pilling et al. (2013) revealed a number of major deficiencies regarding the study design, the protocol and the evaluation of results. Colonies were exposed for short periods per year to flowering oilseed rape and maize grown from thiamethoxam-coated seeds. Thiamethoxam as the sole active ingredient was used, not a more efficacious commercial product, at seed treatment rates that were lower than recommended as per common agricultural practices. Design and adherence to the protocol were described inadequately making it doubtful whether the study was implemented in a traceable way. No results are given for overwintering losses. Much emphasis is laid on presenting condensed raw data but no statistical evaluation is provided. Therefore, the work presented does not contribute new knowledge to our understanding of the potential impact of thiamethoxam products under field conditions. Furthermore, the authors express concern over the refereeing process of the paper. Publications in refereed journals are likely to be taken seriously in political debates and policy-making, and so must be based on truthful data and methodologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 39%
Environmental Science 6 8%
Chemistry 5 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 15 February 2020.
All research outputs
#696,222
of 23,940,484 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Sciences Europe
#40
of 602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,118
of 289,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Sciences Europe
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,940,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 289,469 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them