↓ Skip to main content

Insect Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 8: Ecotoxicity of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Bees
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Ecotoxicity of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Bees
Chapter number 8
Book title
Insect Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6445-8_8
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4419-6444-1, 978-1-4419-6445-8
Authors

Axel Decourtye, James Devillers, Decourtye, Axel, Devillers, James

Editors

Steeve Hervé Thany PhD

Abstract

This chapter reviews the available data on the toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to bees that are the prominent and the most economically important group of pollinators worldwide. Classical and new methods developed to take into account the characteristics and different types of effects of the neonicotinoid insecticides to bees are described. The available toxicity results are critically analyzed. Thus, the nitro-substituted compounds (clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid and its metabolites, thiamethoxam, nitenpyram) appear the most toxic to bees. The cyano-substituted neonicotinoids seem to exhibit a much lower toxicity (acetamiprid and thiacloprid). The chapter ends with suggestions for additional studies aiming at better assess the hazard of this important insecticide family to bees.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 198 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Researcher 28 13%
Professor 13 6%
Other 43 21%
Unknown 34 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 93 44%
Environmental Science 25 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Chemistry 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 43 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,676,083
of 23,578,918 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#1,043
of 5,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,882
of 400,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#96
of 416 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,918 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 400,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 416 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.