Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin-dressed oilseed rape seeds on pollinating insects in Northern Germany: justification of study design and statistical analysis
The commentary by Bailey and Greenwood makes several strong criticisms of the monitoring study of Heimbach et al. (2016), which are not applicable or misleading. These misrepresentations include the claim that the experimental design of this study was inappropriate and that the statistical analysis in the way it was conducted was senseless. Methods have been described in detail by Heimbach et al. (2016); Peters et al. (2016); Rolke et al. (2016a; b); Sterk et al. (2016) and the aspect of “pseudoreplication” has been discussed in Heimbach et al. (2016) and in detail in Rolke et al. (2016a). Therefore the criticism of Bailey and Greenwood does not add new facts to the scientific audience, overall. With this letter, we respond to the points of criticism discussing basic aspects of the study.
To confirm findings of various field studies on the effects of clothianidin on pollinators performed under different agricultural conditions, a monitoring study was conducted in...
Funding of all expenses for the original monitoring study was through Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim, Germany). However, this response letter has not been funded by Bayer.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
In the meantime, ZG got employed by Bayer AG that sells products containing clothianidin. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. Although the design of the original monitoring study was discussed with the sponsor (Bayer CropScience), they had no role in the implementation, data collection and interpretation of results. The content of this letter was also discussed with statistics experts of Bayer AG.
This letter does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Eckert JE (1933) The flight range of the honeybee. J Agric Res 47:257–285Google Scholar
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2013) EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. an d solitary bees). EFSA J 11:3295Google Scholar
- Hatz K, Goerlitz L, Miles M, Preuss TG, Gao Z, Schmuck R (under revision) Meta-analysis of honey bee studies shows inadequate randomization can lead to wrong conclusions. Biol LettGoogle Scholar
- Heimbach F, Schmuck R, Grünewald B, Campbell P, Sappington K, Steeger T, Davies LP (2017) The challenge: assessment of risks posed by systemic insecticides to hymenopteran pollinators: new perception when we move from laboratory via (semi-)field to landscape scale testing? Environ Toxicol Chem 36(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liess M, Brown C, Dohmen P, 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. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Brussels (BE)Google Scholar
- Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (2011) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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 356:1393–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zuur FA, Ieno NE, Walker JN, Saveliev AA, Smith MG (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar