, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

Effects of neonicotinoids on Bees: an invalid experiment

Letter To The Editor



We thank Dr Fred Heimbach and his colleagues for helping us in trying to produce a note that generates light rather than heat.


This work was not funded by any grant or company.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies performed by any of the authors that involved human participants or animals.


  1. Bailey RA (2008) Design of comparative experiments. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker F (2016) Design and analysis of field studies with bees: A critical review of the draft EFSA guidance. Integr Environ Assess Manag 12(3):422–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Candolfi M, Bigler F, Campbell P, Heimbach U, Schmuck R, Angeli G, Bakker F, Brown K, Carli G, Dinter A, Forti D, Forster R, Gathmann A, Hassan S, Mead-Briggs M, Melandri M, Neumann P, Pasqualini E, Powell W, Reboulet J-N, Romijn K, Sechser B, Thieme Th, Ufer A, Vergnet Ch, Vogt H (2000) Principles for regulatory testing and interpretation of semi-field and field studies with non-target arthropods. J Pest Sci 73:141–147Google Scholar
  4. Chamberlain DE, Fuller RJ, Bunce RGH, Duckworth JC, Shrubb M (2000) Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J Appl Ecol 37(5):771–788. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawley MJ (2015) Statistics: An introduction using R, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD, Sultan M, McFarlane AD, Brewer L (2014) A large-scale field study examining effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola on honey bee colony health, development, and overwintering success. PeerJ 2:e652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies GM, Gray A (2015) Don’t let spurious accusations of psedo-replication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). Ecol Evol 5(22):5295–5304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2010) EPPO Standards –Efficacy evaluation of plant protection products—PP 1/170(4) Side-effects on honeybees. OEPP/EPPO Bull 40:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Food Safety Authority (2013) Evaluation of the FERA study on bumble bees and consideration of its potential impact on the EFSA conclusions on neonicotinoids. EFSA J 11(6):3242. 20p. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher RA (1926) The arrangement of field experiments. J Minist Agric Gt Br 33:503–513Google Scholar
  11. Fisher RA (1935) Design of experiments, 1st edn. Oliver & Boyd, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuller RJ, Gregory RD, Gibbons DW, Marchant JH, Wilson JD, Baillie SR, Carter N (1995) Population declines and range contractions among lowland farmland birds in Britain. Conserv Biol 9(6):1425–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson DJ (2014) Methods in comparative plant population ecology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grafen A, Hails R (2002) Modern statistics for the life sciences. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenwood JJD, Crick HQP (2015) “It seemed like a dream come true”—Derek Ratcliffe and the peregrine surveys. In: Thomson DBA, Birks HH, Birks JB (eds) Nature’s conscience: The life and legacy of Derek Ratcliffe. Langford Press, King’s Lynn, p 255–279Google Scholar
  16. Hallmann CA, Foppen RPB, van Turnhout CAM, de Kroon H, Jongejans E (2014) Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511(7509):341–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heimbach F, Russ A, Schimmer M, Born K (2016) Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin dressed oilseed rape seeds on pollinating insects in Northern Germany: implementation of the monitoring project and its representativeness. Ecotoxicology 25:1630–1647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henry M, Cerrutti N, Aupinel P, Decourtye A, Gayrard M, Odoux J-F, Pissard A, Rüger C, Bretagnolle V (2015) Reconciling laboratory and field assessments of neonicotinoid toxicity to honeybees. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 282:20152110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurlbert SH (2004) On misinterpretations of pseudoreplication and related matters: a reply to Oksanen. Oikos 104:591–597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurlbert SH (2009) The ancient black art and transdisciplinary extent of pseudoreplication. J Comp Psychol 123:434–443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurlbert SH, Lombardi CM (2016) Pseudoreplication, one‐tailed tests, neofisherianism, multiple comparisons, and pseudofactorialism. Integr Environ Assess Manag 12:196–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnstone P (1998) Planning and managing agricultural and ecological experiments. Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham, (republished by Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar
  24. Liess M, Brown C, Dohmen GP, Duquesne S, Hart A, Heimbach F, Kreuger J, Lagadic L, Maund S, Reinert W, Streloke M, Tarazona JV (2005) Effects of pesticides in the field. EU & SETAC Workshop, SETAC, Le Croisic, FranceGoogle Scholar
  25. Newton I (2015) Pesticides and birds of prey—the breakthrough. In: Thomson DBA, Birks HH, Birks JB (eds) Nature’s conscience: The life and legacy of Derek Ratcliffe. Langford Press, King’s Lynn, p 281–299Google Scholar
  26. Oksanen L (2004) The devil lies in details: reply to Stuart Hurlbert. Oikos 104:598–605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters B, Gao Z, Zumkier U (2016) Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin-dressed oilseed rape seeds on pollinating insects in Northern Germany: effects on red mason bees (Osmia bicornis). Ecotoxicology 25:1679–1690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pilling E, Campbell P, Coulson M, Ruddle N, Tornier I (2013) A four-year field program investigating long-term effects of repeated exposure of honey bee colonies to flowering crops treated with thiamethoxam. PLoS ONE 8:e77193. pone.0077193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Potts GR (2012) Partridges. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Rolke D, Fuchs S, Grünewald B, Gao Z, Blenau W (2016a) Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin-dressed oilseed rape seeds on pollinating insects in Northern Germany: effects on honey bees (Apis mellifera). Ecotoxicology 25:1648–1665. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rolke D, Persigehl M, Peters B, Sterk G, Blenau W (2016b) Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin-dressed oilseed rape seeds on pollinating insects in northern Germany: residues of clothianidin in pollen, nectar and honey. Ecotoxicology 25:1691–1701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rundlöf M, Andersson GKS, Bommarco R, Fries I, Hederström V, Herbertsson L, Jonsson O, Klatt BK, Pedersen TR, Yourstone J, Smith HG (2015) Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521:77–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruxton GD, Colegrave N (2016) Experimental design for the life sciences, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Schick RS, Greenwood JJD, Buckland ST (2017) An experiment on the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honeybees: the value of a formal analysis of the data. Environ Sci Eur 29:4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sparks TH, Bailey RA, Elston DA (1997) Pseudoreplication: Common (mal)practice. SETAC News 17(3):12–13Google Scholar
  36. Sterk G, Peters B, Gao Z, Zumkier U (2016) Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin-dressed OSR seeds on pollinating insects in Northern Germany: effects on large earth bumble bees (Bombus terrestris). Ecotoxicology 25:1666–1678. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson H, Harrington P, Wilkins S, Pietravalle S, Sweet D, Jones A (2013) Effects of neonicotinoid seed treatments on bumble bee colonies under field conditions. Food and Environment Research Agency, Sand Hutton, YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsvetkov N, Samson-Robert O, Sood K, Patel HS, Malena DA, Gajiwala PH, Maciukiewicz P, Fournier V, Zayed A (2017) Chronic exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee health near corn crops. Science 356:1395–1397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiens JA (1996) Coping with variability in environmental impact assessment. In: Baird DJ, Maltby L, Greig-Smith PW, Douben PET (eds) ECOtoxicology: Ecological Dimensions. Chapman and Hall, London, p 55–70. Scholar
  40. Woodcock BA, Bullock JM, Shore RF, Heard MS, Pereira MG, Redhead J, Ridding L, Dean H, Sleep D, Henrys P, Peyton J, Hulmes S, Hulmes L, Sárospataki M, Saure C, Edwards M, Genersch E, Knäbe S, Pywell RF (2017) Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees. Science 356:1393–1395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St AndrewsFifeScotland
  2. 2.Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling, University of St AndrewsFifeScotland

Personalised recommendations