A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

              [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

  Subjects -> CONSERVATION (Total: 142 journals)
Showing 1 - 37 of 37 Journals sorted alphabetically
Advanced Sustainable Systems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
African Journal of Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
African Journal of Range & Forage Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
African Journal of Wildlife Research     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
AICCM Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Ambiens. Revista Iberoamericana Universitaria en Ambiente, Sociedad y Sustentabilidad     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
American Journal of Rural Development     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
American Museum Novitates     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Animal Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 48)
Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation - International Journal of the Bioflux Society     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 43)
Arcada : Revista de conservación del patrimonio cultural     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Archeomatica     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Arid Land Research and Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Australasian Plant Conservation: Journal of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Biodiversity and Conservation     Open Access   (Followers: 246)
Biological Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 383)
Business Strategy and the Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Catalysis for Sustainable Energy     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Challenges in Sustainability     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Chelonian Conservation and Biology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Conservación Vegetal     Open Access  
Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
Conservation Biology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 342)
Conservation Genetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Conservation Science     Open Access   (Followers: 28)
Conservation Science and Practice     Open Access  
Diversity and Distributions     Open Access   (Followers: 44)
Earth's Future     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Eastern European Countryside     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Eco-Entrepreneur     Open Access  
Ecological Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 207)
Ecological Psychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Ecological Restoration     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 23)
Ecology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 100)
Ecology and Society     Open Access   (Followers: 52)
Environment and Natural Resources Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Environment and Planning E : Nature and Space     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Environmental and Resource Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Environmental Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 61)
Ethnobiology and Conservation     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
European Countryside     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Forest Policy and Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Forum Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 45)
Functional Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 52)
Future Anterior     Full-text available via subscription  
Global Ecology and Biogeography     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 74)
Global Ecology and Conservation     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Ideas in Ecology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
In Situ. Revue des patrimoines     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Indonesian Journal of Conservation     Open Access  
Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Interações (Campo Grande)     Open Access  
Interdisciplinary Environmental Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
International Journal of Environment and Pollution     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
International Journal of Global Energy Issues     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
International Journal of Sustainable Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
International Soil and Water Conservation Research     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Intervención     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Journal for Nature Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31)
Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Journal of East African Natural History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Journal of Industrial Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Journal of Paper Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Journal of Rural Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Journal of Sustainable Mining     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Journal of the American Institute for Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Journal of the Institute of Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
Journal of Threatened Taxa     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Journal of Urban Ecology     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Julius-Kühn-Archiv     Open Access  
Lakes & Reservoirs Research & Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Landscape and Urban Planning     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34)
Madagascar Conservation & Development     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Madera y Bosques     Open Access  
Media Konservasi     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription  
Natural Resources and Conservation     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Natural Resources Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Nature Conservation     Open Access   (Followers: 36)
Nature Sustainability     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Natureza & Conservação : Brazilian Journal of Nature Conservation     Open Access  
Neotropical Biology and Conservation     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies     Open Access  
Northeastern Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Northwestern Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription  
Novos Cadernos NAEA     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
npj Urban Sustainability     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Nusantara Bioscience     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ocean Acidification     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
One Ecosystem     Open Access  
Oryx     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Pacific Conservation Biology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Park Watch     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability     Hybrid Journal  
Rangeland Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Recursos Rurais     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Recycling     Open Access  
Resources, Conservation & Recycling     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Resources, Conservation & Recycling : X     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Restoration Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47)
Revista de Ciencias Ambientales     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista de Direito e Sustentabilidade     Open Access  
Revista Meio Ambiente e Sustentabilidade     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Memorare     Open Access  
Rural Sustainability Research     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Savana Cendana     Open Access  
Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Socio-Ecological Practice Research     Hybrid Journal  
Soil Ecology Letters     Hybrid Journal  
Southeastern Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Southern Forests : a Journal of Forest Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Studies in Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Sustainable Earth     Open Access  
Sustainable Environment Agricultural Science (SEAS)     Open Access  
Sustentabilidade em Debate     Open Access  
Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature Conservation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
The American Midland Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
The Southwestern Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Tropical Conservation Science     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Tropical Ecology     Hybrid Journal  
VITRUVIO : International Journal of Architectural Technology and Sustainability     Open Access  
Water Conservation Science and Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Western North American Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Wildfowl     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Wildlife Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Wildlife Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)

              [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Number of Followers: 0  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1868-9892 - ISSN (Online) 2199-921X
Published by Eugen Ulmer KG Homepage  [8 journals]
  • Predicting wild bee sensitivity to insecticides utilizing phylogenetically
           controlled inter-species correlation models

    • Authors: Tobias Pamminger, Nicole Hanewald, Christof Schneider
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.022
  • Content

    • Authors: Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 3 - 10
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
  • Statement about the mission and role of the ICPPR Bee Protection Group

    • Authors: Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 13 - 14
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
  • About the 14th International Symposium of the Bee Protection Group in Bern

    • Authors: Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 15 - 16
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
  • Current experimental advances from the French Methodological Bee Group.
           New improvement for future repro-toxicity tests

    • Authors: Hervé Giffard, Marie Pierre Chauzat, Julie Fourrier, Sandrine Lablond, Pierrick Aupinel, Frank Aletru, Jean Luc Brunet, Jean Michel Laporte, Cyril Vidau
      Pages: 17 - 17
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.001
  • The homing flight method to assess the effect of sublethal doses of plant
           protection products on the honey bee in field conditions: results of the
           ring tests

    • Authors: Julie Fourrier, Carole Moreau-Vauzelle, Colombe Chevallerau, Pierrick Aupinel, Mickaël Henry, Cyril Vidau, Axel Decourtye
      Pages: 18 - 18
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.002
  • Disturbed energy metabolism after neonicotinoid exposure as cause of
           altered homing flight activity of honey bees

    • Authors: Verena Christen, Lukas Jeker
      Pages: 19 - 19
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.003
  • Gene expreslsion analysis in honey bees as novel tool for assessing
           effects of plant protection products

    • Authors: Karl Fent, Verena Christen, Petra Kunz
      Pages: 19 - 20
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.004
  • Practical experiences with a syrup feeding study design based on a new MRL
           guideline SANTE11956/2016 rev.9 (2018)

    • Authors: Yotam Cohen, Christian Berg, Gundula Gonsior, Silvio Knäbe
      Pages: 20 - 25
      Abstract: A new study design, according to the guideline SANTE11956/2016 rev:9 (2018), was established to determine the maximum residue level (MRL) of plant protection products in honey. The guideline describes a syrup bee feeding study designed as a worst-case scenario for transferring plant protection products into honey. Previously, field and semi-field studies designs were used. The objectives of this study were to validate the suitability of this feeding semi-field studies according to the new guideline.
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.005
  • Impact of an Oomen feeding with a neonicotinoid on daily activity and
           colony development of honeybees assessed with an AI based monitoring

    • Authors: Gundula Gonsior, Frederic Tausch, Katharina Schmidt, Silvio Knäbe
      Pages: 25 - 29
      Abstract: Feeding experiments are standard tools in the pollinator risk assessment. The design (Oomen et al. 1992) was developed to test insect growth regulators and herbicides. In recent years there was an update (Lückmann & Schmitzer 2015) on the outline in order to also focus on the advantage of different rates making a dose response design possible where exposure levels are known. Additionally, this design gives the possibility to test different rates for honey bee colonies foraging in the same landscape.
      The main objective of the experiment presented here was to determine the natural variability of foragers losses of hives fed with a sub-lethal neonicotinoid concentration compared to an untreated control. Other objectives were to see if the neurotoxic exposure results in any observable sub-lethal effects and to find out if losses can be correlated to hive development. This was assessed with traditional methods and a novel, visual monitoring device.
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.006
  • Consequences of a short term, sub lethal pesticide exposure early in life
           on survival and immunity in the honeybee (Apis mellifera)

    • Authors: Yahya Al Naggar, Boris Baer
      Pages: 30 - 30
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.007
  • How does the novel insecticide flupyradifurone affect honeybee longevity
           and behavior'

    • Authors: Ricarda Scheiner, Antonia Schuhmann, Hannah Hesselbach
      Pages: 30 - 31
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.008
  • Dust drift from treated seeds during seed drilling: comparison of residue
           deposition in soil and plants

    • Authors: André Krahner, Udo Heimbach, Gabriela Bischoff, Matthias Stähler, Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 31 - 31
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.009
  • Coumaphos residues in beeswax after a single application of CheckMite®
           affect larval development in vitro

    • Authors: Christina Kast, Verena Kilchenmann, Benoît Droz
      Pages: 31 - 32
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.010
  • Exposure following pre-flowering insecticide applications to pollinators

    • Authors: Edward Pilling, Jeremey Barnekow, Vincent Kramer, Anne Alix, Olaf Klein, Lea Franke, Julian Fricke
      Pages: 32 - 32
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.011
  • Assessing effects of insecticide seed treatments on pollinators in oilseed
           rape and maize

    • Authors: Edward Pilling, Anne Alix, Olaf Klein, Lea Franke, Julian Fricke, Marco Kleinhenz, Heike Gätschenberger
      Pages: 32 - 33
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.012
  • Conservation and creation of multi-functional margins to maintain and
           increase the pollinator biodiversity in agricultural environments (d)

    • Authors: Francisco Javier Peris-Felipo, Oscar Aguado-Martín, Luis Miranda-Barroso
      Pages: 33 - 34
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.013
  • Applied statistics in field and semi-field studies with bees

    • Authors: Ulrich Zumkier, Markus Persigehl, Andrea Roßbach, Ines Hotopp, Anja Ruß
      Pages: 34 - 37
      Abstract: Field and semi-field studies are important tools in the ecotoxicological risk assessment of plant protection products for bees (honey bees, bumblebees and solitary bees). While these studies represent far more realistic conditions than laboratory tests, they also present a challenge for the analysis and interpretation due to the large and complex datasets. Therefore, in order to correctly answer the underlying ecotoxicological questions, it is crucial that these studies are not only thoroughly planned and conducted, it is also important that they are subjected to adequate statistical analysis. Our aim is to provide a better understanding on how to conduct and interpret statistical analyses in field and semi-field studies with bees made for regulatory purposes. An overview of how study design and statistics should be aligned with each other is given including the specific challenges of (semi-) field trials, as for instance how to address the problem of pseudoreplication if hives are regarded as experimental units. Different statistical tools are compared and their suitability for different data types and questions are discussed. Generalized Linear (Mixed) Models (GLMMs) are evaluated in more detail as they provide a flexible and robust tool for the analysis of honey bee (semi-) field data. Furthermore, some more light is shed on what p-values really tell us, how they can help to interpret data and how they should not be misinterpreted.
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.014
  • ICPPR WG Semi-field and field Report and Discussion

    • Authors: Ed, Barbara Martinovic Barrett, Axel Dinter, Cynthia Scott-Dupree, Reed Johnson, Gavin Lewis, Mark Miles, Markus Persigehl, Sabine Hecht-Rost, Bronislawa Szczesniak, Verena Tänzler, Ulrich Zumkier
      Pages: 37 - 39
      Abstract: The ICPPR Semi-Field/Field Testing (SF/FT) workgroup consists of several ‘writing groups’ that are focused developing technical guidance that is focused on 4 separate but related topics: 1) designing and conducting pollen and nectar residue studies, 2) conducting large scale colony feeding studies, 3) updating guidance for conducting semi-field tunnel studies, and 4) design and interpretation of full field studies with bees. What follows is the current status of each of these activities.
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.015
  • Higher TIER bumble bees and solitary bees recommendations for a semi-field
           experimental design

    • Authors: Silvio Knäbe, Matthew J. Allan, Annika Alscher, Kristin Amsel, Christian Classen, Magdaléna Cornement, Charlotte Elston, Nina Exeler, Lea Franke, Malte Frommberger, Hervé Giffard, Juan Sorlí Guerola, Sabine Hecht-Rost, Bettina Hodapp, Ines Hotopp, Carole Jenkins, Tobias Jütte, Stefan Kimmel, Olaf Klein, Britta Kullmann, Johannes Lückmann, Markus Persigehl, Ivo Roessink, Christof Schneider, Alexander Schnurr, Verena Tänzler, Jozef J. M. van der Steen
      Pages: 40 - 45
      Abstract: The publication of the proposed EFSA risk assessment guidance document of plant protection products for pollinators highlighted that there are no study designs for non-Apis pollinators available. Since no official guidelines exist for semi-field testing at present, protocols were proposed by the ICPPR non-Apis working group and two years of ring-testing were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to develop a general test set-up. The ringtest design was based on the draft EFSA guidance document, OEPP/EPPO Guideline No. 170 and results of discussions regarding testing solitary bees and bumble bees during the meetings of the ICPPR non-Apis workgroup.
      Ring-tests were conducted with two different test organisms, one representative of a social bumble bee species (Bombus terrestris L; Hymenoptera, Apidae) and one representative of a solitary bee species (Osmia bicornis L; Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). The species are common species in Europe, commercially available and widely used for pollination services. Several laboratories participated in the higher-tier ring tests. 15 semi-field tests were conducted with bumble bees and 16 semi-field tests were done with solitary bees in 2016 and 2017.
      Two treatment groups were always included in the ringtests: an untreated control (water treated) and the treatment with dimethoate as a toxic reference item (optional other i.e. brood-affecting substances fenoxycarb or diflubenzuron). The toxic reference items were chosen based on their mode of action and long term experience in honey bee testing.
      A summary of the ringtest results will be given and the recommendations for the two semi-field test designs will be presented.
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.016
  • Stingless bee ring test: acute contact toxicity test

    • Authors: Roberta C. F. Nocelli, Thaisa C. Roat, Lucas Miotelo, Tauane A. Lima, Aryadne G. Rodrigues, Geovana M. Silva, Osmar Malaspina
      Pages: 46 - 47
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.018
  • Progress on the Osmia acute oral test - findings of the ICPPR Non-Apis
           subgroup solitary bee laboratory testing

    • Authors: Ivo Roessink, Nicole Hanewald, Christof Schneider, Anja Quambusch, Nina Exeler, Ana R. Cabrera, Anna Maria Molitor, Verena Tänzler, Bettina Hodapp, Matthias Albrecht, Annely Brandt, Steven Vinall, Anne-Kathrin Rathke, Hervé Giffard, Eugenia Soler, Alexander Schnurr, Michael Patnaude, Elodie Couture, David Lehmann
      Pages: 46 - 46
      PubDate: 2020-05-11
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.017
  • Standardization of an in vitro rearing method for the stingless bee
           species Scaptotrigona postica larvae and its application for determining
           the toxicity of dimethoate on the larval phase

    • Authors: Annelise Rosa-Fontana, Adna Dorigo, Juliana Stephanie Galaschi-Teixeira, Roberta C. F. Nocelli, Osmar Malaspina
      Pages: 47 - 48
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.019
  • Effects of chemical and biological Plant Protection Products on R&D
           colonies of the Buff-Tailed Bumblebee Bombus terrestris (2.5 Part 1)

    • Authors: Guido Sterk, Janna Hannegraaf, Paraskevi Kolokytha
      Pages: 48 - 53
      Abstract: Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) are exposed daily to Plant Protection Products through their foraging and feeding activities. Through all possible means of contact with pesticides, consumption through sugarwater is the most severe. In the present study, lethal and sublethal effects of the consumption of sugarwater solutions with the pesticides Sivanto WG (flupyradifuron), Exalt SC (spinetoram) and Oikos EC (azadirachtin) were studied using a sequential dilution testing scheme of 1/1 and 1/10 of the maximum field recommended concentration (MFRC). For the weekly assessment, parameters such as the survival of the mother queen, of workers and drones, the formation of gynes, and the weight and volume of the colonies were recorded. Moreover, by the end of the colony’s life, the total number of formed workers/drones, the number of newborn gynes and queen brood were also recorded. The IOBC side-effect classes for laboratory trials were applied in order for the results to be categorized and conclusions made. Both tested concentrations of Sivanto WG (flupyradifuron) were slightly harmful for queen, worker and drone populations, Exalt SC (spinetoram) was harmful at 1/1 dilution but only slightly harmful at the 1/10 dilution, and both concentrations of Oikos EC (azadirachtin) were slightly harmful for workers and drones but toxic for queens at both dilutions.
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.020
  • Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. aizawai GC91 (Agree WG) on R&D
           colonies of the Buff-Tailed Bumblebee Bombus terrestris (2.5 Part 2)

    • Authors: Guido Sterk, Janna Hannegraaf, Paraskevi Kolokytha
      Pages: 53 - 57
      Abstract: Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. aizawai, a widely used biological plant protection product, was tested on buff-tailed bumblebee Bombus terrestris, using an updated laboratory method on full standardized R&D colonies. The maximum field recommended concentration (MFRC) was applied through topical, oral pollen and oral sugar water treatment. Parameters such as survival of the mother queen and workers, formation of gynes, weight and volume of the colonies were recorded during the study, while the total number of formed workers/drones, the number of newborn gynes and queen brood were taken also at the end of the colonies’ life. For the evaluation of the results the data were calculated and categorized according to the IOBC side-effect classes, used for laboratory trials.
      According to the results, no toxic effect was recorded for all parameters taken from the bumblebee colonies when they were exposed to B. thuringiensis aizawai GC91.
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.021
  • Lethality of Imidacloprid and Fipronil on Apis mellifera: a
           retrospective on the French case

    • Authors: Isaac Mestres Lóbez
      Pages: 59 - 62
      Abstract: The aim of this study is to draw a retrospective analysis on the lethality of imidacloprid (Gaucho®) and fipronil (Régent® TS) on Apis mellifera between 1992 and 2016 in France. Early monitoring reports in the 1992-2002 period notified these two embedded insecticides to be at the origin of massive colony collapse disorders. Ecotoxicological analyses based on the LD50 of imidacloprid and fipronil highlighted their differential lethality by both contact (imidacloprid: 81 ng/honeybee vs fipronil: 5,9 ng/honeybee) and ingestion (imidacloprid: 3,7 ng/honeybee vs fipronil: 4,2 ng/honeybee) but failed to point imidacloprid’s high solubility as a higher lethal agent. Chemical properties and action mode of these two insecticides originated neural disfunction in the case of imidacloprid, and honeybee brood immune depression for fipronil. Despite the conduction of these monitoring reports and laboratory researches, Fipronil was completely banned in 2005 but Imidacloprid only in 2016.
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.023
  • Pesticide residues and transformation products in Greek honey, pollen and

    • Authors: Konstantinos M. Kasiotis, Effrosyni Zafeiraki, Pelagia Anastasiadou, Electra Manea-Karga, Kyriaki Machera
      Pages: 63 - 63
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.024
  • Impact of the use of plant protection products harmful to bees on bee
           colonies during spring: Results of a monitoring programme in apple
           orchards in South Tyrol (2014-2017)

    • Authors: Benjamin Mair, Manfred Wolf
      Pages: 63 - 64
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.025
  • Risk of exposure in soil and sublethal effects of systemic insecticides on
           ground-nesting hoary squash bees

    • Authors: D. Susan Willis Chan, Ryan S. Prosser, Jose L. Rodríguez-Gil, Nigel E. Raine
      Pages: 65 - 65
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.026
  • Biopesticides and pollinators – Examples and requirements on risk
           assessment from a technical perspective

    • Authors: Stefan Kimmel
      Pages: 65 - 65
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.027
  • Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) versus honey bee (Apis mellifera) acute
           sensitivity – Final results of an ECPA data evaluation

    • Authors: Axel Dinter, Johannes Lückmann, Roland Becker, Mark Miles, Ed Pilling, Natalie Ruddle, Amanda Sharples, Stefan Kroder, Laurent Oger
      Pages: 66 - 66
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.028
  • Proposed decision tree to evaluate the potential risk of plant protection
           products to bees via succeeding crops

    • Authors: Anne Alix, Mark Miles
      Pages: 66 - 66
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.029
  • Are flowering weeds in agricultural treated fields a sigificant exposure
           route for risk assessment'

    • Authors: Natalie Ruddle, Ed Pilling, Graeme Last, Gabor Pap, Gavin Lewis, Mark Miles, Christof Schneider, Roland Becker, Anne Alix, Axel Dinter, Stefan Kroder, Amanda Sharples, Laurent Oger
      Pages: 67 - 67
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.030
  • Guttation as an exposure route in the risk assessment for plant protection
           products – Review of available data

    • Authors: Mark Miles, Ulrich Zumkier, Amanda Sharples, Natalie Ruddle, Anne Alix, Christof Schneider, Ed Pilling, Axel Dinter, Stefan Kroder, Laurent Oger
      Pages: 67 - 68
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.031
  • Measures taken - the Swiss national action plan for bee health

    • Authors: Katja Knauer
      Pages: 68 - 71
      Abstract: The annual winter losses of honey bees in Switzerland vary between 9% and 23% during the years 2008 to 2019 and are exceeding the as normal defined 10% level. The causes for the losses can have several reasons. However, one of the main reasons is the infection of the honeybees with the Varroa mite. Therefore, a health services for bees was founded to offer education programs for beekeepers and to support beekeepers in preventing and combating diseases. Switzerland further decided in 2014 to implement an action plan to promote the health of bees. Measures have been taken in the areas of disease prevention, promotion of food supply and reduction of risks from plant protection products. Immediate measures have been implemented such as the inclusion of a flowering strip in the Direct Payments Ordinance and measures to protect bees from plant protection products. Switzerland is actively involved in the development of new OECD test guidelines to evaluate the acute and chronic risk to honey- and wild bees. Honey and wild bees play an important role in pollination of agricultural crops and wild plants. The current situation is in evaluation to decide if further measures are needed.
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.032
  • EFSA bee guidance document 2.0

    • Authors: Csaba Szentes
      Pages: 72 - 72
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.033
  • Applying the mechanistic honey bee colony model BEEHAVE to inform test
           designs of Large-Scale Colony Feeding Study (LCFS)

    • Authors: Silvia Hinarejos, Farah Abi-Akar, Nika Galic, Amelie Schmolke
      Pages: 73 - 73
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.034
  • BEEHAVE validation and resulting insights for the design of field studies
           with bees

    • Authors: Annika Agatz, Mark Miles, Thorsten Schad, Thomas Preuss
      Pages: 74 - 74
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.035
  • Bee pollinator toxicogenomics: an interdisciplinary approach to unravel
           molecular determinants of insecticide selectivity

    • Authors: Marion Zaworra, Ralf Nauen
      Pages: 74 - 75
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.036
  • Introducing the INSIGNIA project: Environmental monitoring of pesticide
           use through honey bees

    • Authors: Jozef J. M. van der Steen, (on behalf of the Insignia consortium)
      Pages: 75 - 76
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.037
  • Report of the activities of the ICPPR Bee Brood Working Group

    • Authors: Matthew J. Allan, Markus Barth, Roland Becker, Sigrun Bocksch, Magdaléna Cornement, Jakob H. Eckert, Hervé Giffard, Bettina Hodapp, Lukas Jeker, Stefan Kimmel, Johannes Lückmann, Markus Persigehl, Ed Pilling, Natalie Ruddle, Rastislav Sabo, Christof Schneider, Stephan Schmitzer, Maryam Sultan, Verena Tänzler, Selwyn Wilkins
      Pages: 76 - 77
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.038
  • Precision farming – consideration of reduced exposure in the
           pollinator risk assessment

    • Authors: Johannes Lückmann, Sibylle Kaiser, Felix von Blankenhagen
      Pages: 78 - 82
      Abstract: Observed declines in the distribution and abundance of various insect species have moved the topic of biodiversity and the protection of honey bees, an insect species of particular economic interest, into the focus of public attention. This also resulted in an increasing public pressure to reform the European agricultural policy and as part of this to minimise the amount of synthetic plant protection products used.
      In this context, so-called ‘precision farming’ offers a considerable potential for a reduced application of plant protection products by using precision application techniques that allow to adjust applications to the actual scale of target distribution within a field. Is however currently not possible to exactly quantify the subsequent decrease of exposure of non-target organisms. Focusing on honey bees, the authors are therefore in a first step proposing a field study design to quantify the direct and indirect exposure of honey bees and their colonies in relation to the ratio of treated to untreated field area and the application pattern used. Furthermore, parameters of the bee risk assessment scheme are discussed that could be suitable to describe exposure reduction by precision application.
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.039
  • Evaluation of honey bee larvae data: sensitivity to PPPs and impact
           analysis of EFSA Bee GD

    • Authors: Johannes Lückmann, Roland Becker, Mark Miles, Anne Alix, Axel Dinter, Stefan Kroder, Ed Pilling, Natalie Ruddle, Christof Schneider, Amanda Sharples, Laurent Oger
      Pages: 82 - 89
      Abstract: In addition to other assessments, the EFSA bee guidance document (2013) requires the risk assessment of plant protection products on honey bee larvae. At the time the EFSA GD was finalized, no data on honey bee larvae were available due to absence of suitable methods. That is why in 2013 the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) perfomed an impact analysis of the new EFSA risk assessment, using extrapolated endpoints derived from acute oral honey bee endpoints. Today, a number of honey bee larvae toxicity studies (138 active substances or formulated products) have been conducted according to the newly developed testing methods for single exposure (OECD TG 237) repeated exposure studies until the end of the larval development (D7/D8) and repeated exposure testing (OECD GD 239) until adult hatch (D22). These experimental data have been used to determine the ‘pass rates’ for 215 worst case uses (72 fungicide spray and solid uses, 91 herbicide spray uses, incl. 8 PGR uses and in total 52 insecticide spray and solid uses, incl. 2 nematicide and 3 IGR uses) according to the EFSA Bee GD and to compare with the original ECPA impact analysis. As standardized test methods for non- Apis bees larvae were not available, risk assessment according to EFSA for bumblebees and solitary bees based on the honey bee endpoint as surrogate corrected by a safety factor of 10. Morevoer, the sensitivity of the NOEDs at D8 and D22 in repeated exposure (D 22) studies were analysed.
      Overall, the toxicity of fungicides and herbicides to honey bee larvae (expressed as means and medians of NOED and LD50 values) was moderate to low, while insecticides as expected displayed stronger toxicity. Moreover, the endpoints for herbicides were on average a factor of 2 higher than fungicides which ranges within the normal biological variability (factor of 3). In addition, it is unclear, if the difference is related to a slightly higher toxicity or other factors like different physical chemical properties (e.g. lower solubility). For insecticides, toxicity was about 125 (based on medians) and 6 to 8 (based on means) times higher than herbicides. In the screening risk assessment according to EFSA Bee GD the majority of fungicide (83.3%) and herbicide (95.6%) uses passed the risk assessment for larvae; whereas, for all insecticide uses thr pass rate was about 29%. In the Tier 1 risk assessment, these pass rates slightly increased and were even higher in the ‘treated crop’ and ‘weed in the field’ scenarios for fungicide and herbicide uses, almost being 100%. Pass rates for insecticide uses did not improve very much and amounted to be about 42% for both scenarios. When basing the risk assessment of bumblebee and solitary bee larvae on 1/10th of the honey bee larval endpoint, the majority of active substances and their respective products will fail the screening (overall about 96%) and Tier 1 risk assessment (overall about 90%).
      Alternative risk assessment approaches proposed by ECPA (e.g. following the EPPO approach; ECPA Option 1 using refinement options and more representative assumptions) or comparing an assummed exposure concentration to the NOEC (ECPA Option 2) led to a slight increase (Option 1) or even no differences in the pass rates (Option 2a) compared to EFSA Tier 1 risk assessment. Thus both, the standard risk assessment according to the EFSA Bee GD as well as the alternative ECPA Option 1 and 2 result in a clear distinction between products with high toxicity (insecticides) vs. non-toxic products (herbicides and fungicides) for the honey bee risk assessment.
      The sensitivity analysis of repeated exposure studies according OECD GD 239 indicated that in most cases toxicity did not increase during the pupation period between D8 and D22. Thus, the larval growing period between D3 and D8 represents the most sensitive period of the pre-imaginal development.
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.040
  • Chronic oral exposure of adult honey bees to PPPs: sensitivity and impact
           analysis of EFSA Bee GD

    • Authors: Johannes Lückmann, Mark Miles, Roland Becker, Anne Alix, Axel Dinter, Stefan Kroder, Ed Pilling, Natalie Ruddle, Christof Schneider, Amanda Sharples, Laurent Oger
      Pages: 89 - 89
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.041
  • Establishing realistic exposure estimates of solitary bee larvae via
           pollen using inter species correlation models

    • Authors: Tobias Pamminger, Christof Schneider, Matthias Bergtold
      Pages: 90 - 90
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.042
  • Honeybee brood testing under semi-field and field conditions according to
           Oomen and OECD GD 75: is there a difference of the brood termination

    • Authors: Johannes Lückmann, Verena Tänzler
      Pages: 91 - 95
      Abstract: According to current European regulations on the risk assessment of plant protection products, the risk on honey bee larvae or honey bee brood has to be addressed. If the assessment indicates, that a potential risk cannot be excluded based on data derived from laboratory studies, two higher-tier options are given by the EFSA bee Guidance Document to refine this under more realistic conditions: the Oomen bee brood feeding test and brood studies performed according to the OECD Guidance Document 75. Both study types focus on the brood termination rate (BTR) as the key endpoint. While the Oomen brood test investigates the brood development after the acute or chronic administration of a test item spiked sugar solution to unconfined colonies, brood studies according to OECD GD 75 are performed under semi-field confined exposure conditions and examine potential effects on the bee brood after the overspray of a bee attractive flowering crop. However, the evaluation of historical data from semi-field studies according to OECD GD 75 showed a strong variability of the BTR of pre-imaginal stages developing from marked eggs (BTReggs) in the control. As an alternative, field studies according to EPPO 170 which comprise bee brood evaluations according to OECD GD 75 were considered to produce more reliable termination data.
      The statistical analysis of available control data shows that Oomen feeding studies and bee brood studies performed under field conditions lead to significantly lower BTReggs of = 20% compared to semi-field bee brood studies for which a mean BTR of about 30% is observed. Moreover, studies with unconfined colonies show a high proportion of control replicates with BTReggs =30% and =40% indicating a higher reliability compared to semifield studies. A comparison of the possibilities and limitations of the three methods shows the strength of each method. In Oomen studies, the exposure of the brood and of the hive bees only can be regarded as artificial. However, the test concentrations can be adjusted to specific needs and to different feeding durations of at least one (acute) or 9 days (chronic). Furthermore, the absence of ‘caging effects’, the low dependency on climatic or crop conditions, the potential to test also herbicides which control dicotyledonous plants (since no crop plant is adversely affected by its mode of action) and an exposure period of at least nine days in chronic Oomen studies are crucial advantages. In contrast, the exposure scenarios of the two other methods are much more realistic and especially for semi-field studies a worst-case situation. Moreover, they also include exposure via pollen and exposure levels and durations, which strongly depend on the application rate and the flowering period of the treated crop. Whereas a dilution of plant protection product residues cannot be excluded during the exposure period in studies with unconfined colonies due to the shift to untreated flowering plants in the surrounding, this is not given for semi-field studies.
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.043
  • Toxicity of oxalic acid on in vitro reared honeybee larvae

    • Authors: Lucia Sabová, Martin Staroň, Anna Sobeková, Dana Staroňová, Jaroslav Legáth, Rastislav Sabo
      Pages: 95 - 98
      Abstract: Varroa destructor is considered as a serious pest of honeybees (Apis mellifera) and its resistance to acaricides has been reported since the early 1990s. Because large colony loses are yearly reported from over the world, new methods of treatment for Varroa mites are still in focus of many scientists. In our bioassay, we determined the lethal concentration 72 h LC50 of 2.425% oxalic acid solution following single spray exposure of honeybee larvae under laboratory conditions (Guideline OECD 237, 2013).
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.044
  • Do pollen foragers represent a more homogenous test unit for the RFID
           homing test, when using group-feeding'

    • Authors: Michael Eyer, Daniela Grossar, Lukas Jeker
      Pages: 99 - 99
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.045
  • Digital Farming & evaluation of side effects on honey bees – first
           experiences within the Digital Beehive project

    • Authors: Catherine Borrek, Simon Hoff, Ulrich Krieg, Volkmar Krieg, Philipp Senger, Marc Schwering, Silke Andree-Labsch
      Pages: 99 - 99
      PubDate: 2020-05-12
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.046
  • Bee colony assessments with the Liebefeld method: How do individual
           beekeepers influence results and are photo assessments an option to reduce

    • Authors: Holger Bargen, Aline Fauser, Heike Gätschenberger, Gundula Gonsior, Silvio Knäbe
      Pages: 100 - 105
      Abstract: Colony strength, food storage and brood development are a fundamental part of each honeybee field study. Colony assessments are used to compare and assess those for beehive over time. At present, most colony assessments are made by experienced beekeepers according to Liebefeld method. This method is based on an estimation of areas covered by honeybees, food and brood stages on each side of a comb. Areas are counted from a grid separating the comb side into 8 sections which are protocolled with an accuracy of 0.5 sections. An assessment for a hive takes up to 20 min and even with two field locations, it is necessary to split assessments between beekeepers.
      So, it is important to make estimates as comparable as possible. For this purpose, beekeepers practice the assessments on pre-determined photographs to “calibrate themselves”. The advantage of the Liebefeld assessment is that the condition of bee hive is estimated with minimum disturbance of the bees. Digital photography is under discussion to gain data with high precision and accuracy with one major disadvantage. To be able to see food and brood stages in photographs, bees have to be removed from combs. This, however, results in a disturbance of the colony – especially if the assessments take place in short time intervals of 7 ± 1 days.
      An experiment was performed to evaluate the variation between individual beekeepers and to compare the results to data generated with photographs. For the experiment, five colonies were assessed each by four beekeepers independently according to Liebefeld method. Each comb side of the five colonies was photographed with and without honeybees sitting on it for precise analysis at the computer for a number of bees, nectar cells, pollen cells, eggs, open brood and capped brood. The number of bees and cells with the different contents were generated by an area-based assessment in ImageJ as well as a detailed counting with help of HiveAnalyzer® Software. Data from beekeeper estimations were then compared with assessments based on digital photography. With the results of the experiment, we tried to answer several questions. With the study, we wanted to determine the level of variation between the beekeepers for the live stages and food stores estimated.
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.047
  • Practical and regulatory experience in the conduct of bee residue trials

    • Authors: Silke Peterek, Elizabeth Collison, Vincent Ortoli, Alexia Faure
      Pages: 105 - 107
      Abstract: To ensure the safe use of agrochemicals, today’s regulatory system requires an assessment of the environmental risk to bees, as well as an assessment of the dietary risk to humans following the consumption of honey and other bee products. Field trials can provide valuable data to assess the potential exposure of foraging honey bees to agrochemical residues and hence the potential for residues to reach honey consumed by humans.
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.048
  • Establishment of honeybee brood studies under semi-field conditions in

    • Authors: Kyongmi Chon, Hwan Lee, Bo-Seun Kim, Yeon-Ki Park, Are-Sun You, Jin-A Oh, Yong-Soo Choi
      Pages: 107 - 107
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.049
  • Interactive effects of the neonicotinoid Thiacloprid and two common
           fungicides on foraging performance and reproductive success of the
           solitary bee Osmia bicornis under field conditions

    • Authors: Danja Kroder, Matthias Albrecht, Anina Knauer
      Pages: 108 - 108
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.050
  • The use of toxic reference chemicals in solitary bee larval bioassays

    • Authors: Anja Quambusch, Nina Exeler
      Pages: 108 - 108
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.051
  • Laboratory acute contact toxicity test with the leafcutter bee
           Megachile rotundata

    • Authors: Annette Kling, Christian Maisch, Latifur Shovan
      Pages: 109 - 113
      Abstract: So far little is known about the toxicity of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) to solitary bees other than Osmia spp. as well as the inter- and intra-species sensitivity differences of honey bees and solitary bees.
      Megachile rotundata is a commercially bred solitary bee which is used worldwide mainly for the pollination of alfalfa. In general, bees can be exposed to PPPs directly by contact spray application (overspray) or indirectly via nectar and pollen. The leafcutter bees additionally can be exposed to (possibly) contaminated leaf pieces which are used for the building of brood cells. Therefore, contact toxicity might be of major importance within leafcutter bee species.
      Acute contact toxicity tests with M. rotundata based on the existing honey bee testing guideline OECD No. 214 were carried out, to make a first step in the direction of the development of a standard test method and collect data for the comparison of inter- and intra-species contact toxicity sensitivity. The toxic reference substance dimethoate was used as test substance. LD50/24h values of M. rotundata were compared to values of A.mellifera generated in a similar period of time.
      The low mortality observed in the control also after 96 hours, confirms the feasibility and reliability of the test method. The LD50/24h values of M. rotundata in all four tests were higher compared to those of A. mellifera. Accordingly, M. rotundata appeared to be slightly less sensitive to formulated dimethoate than A. mellifera.
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.052
  • Recent experiences with bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) semi-field tunnel
           testing following ICPPR Non-Apis 2016 and 2017 workshop recommendations to
           investigate the insecticide chlorantraniliprole

    • Authors: Axel Dinter, Alan Samel
      Pages: 113 - 121
      Abstract: The study investigated the potential impact of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole (Coragen® brand) on the bumble bee (Bombus terrestris L.) under semi-field conditions in Phacelia tanacetifolia in Germany based on ringtest protocols from the ICPPR Non-Apis workshops (2016 and 2017). The P. tanacetifolia crop was grown in soil treated with the predicted 20-year plateau concentration of chlorantraniliprole in the top 20 cm of soil (equivalent to a predicted 20-year plateau concentration of 0.088 mg a.s./kg). Additionally, two chlorantraniliprole applications at 60 g a.s./ha were made in the chlorantraniliprole treatments (T1 and T2). In T1 both applications took place before P. tanacetifolia flowering at BBCH 51-55 and BBCH 55-59. In T2 one application was conducted before P. tanacetifolia flowering at BBCH 55-59 and one application during P. tanacetifolia flowering and during daily bee flight at BBCH 61-62. The application in the control (C) and reference item treatment (R) (400 g dimethoate a.s./ha) was carried out during full P. tanacetifolia flowering and bumble bee flight. The bumble bee colonies were exposed to the treated flowering P. tanacetifolia crop for 20 days in the tunnels and afterwards the colonies were kept on a monitoring site. The results of this study indicate no significant differences between the chlorantraniliprole treatment groups T1 and T2 and the control regarding all parameters assessed (i.e. mortality in the colonies and in the tunnels, flight activity at the hive entrance, hive weight development, condition of the colonies and production of young queens and males). Overall, no effects of chlorantraniliprole on bumble bee B. terrestris colonies including queen/male production, adult and larval survival and forager flight activity were found.
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.053
  • Sensitivity of the honey bee and different wild bee species to plant
           protection products – two years of comparative laboratory studies

    • Authors: Tobias Jütte, Anna Wernecke, Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 121 - 122
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.054
  • Honeybee viruses in novel hosts – Studying agrochemical-pathogen stress
           combination in wild bees

    • Authors: Sara Hellström, Karsten Seidelmann, Robert J. Paxton
      Pages: 123 - 123
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.055
  • Is Apis mellifera a good model for toxicity tests in Brazil'

    • Authors: Thaisa C. Roat, Lucas Miotelo, Roberta C. F. Nocelli, Osmar Malaspina
      Pages: 123 - 123
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.056
  • Current achievements and future developments of a novel AI based visual
           monitoring of beehives in ecotoxicology and for the monitoring of
           landscape structures

    • Authors: Frederic Tausch, Katharina Schmidt, Matthias Diehl
      Pages: 124 - 129
      Abstract: Honey bees are valuable bioindicators. As such, they hold a vast potential to help shed light on the extent and interdependencies of factors influencing the decline in the number of insects. However, to date this potential has not yet been fully leveraged, as the production of reliable data requires large-scale study designs, which are very labour intensive and therefore costly.
      A novel Artificial Intelligence (AI) based visual monitoring system could enable the partial automatization of data collection on activity, forager loss and impairment of the central nervous system. The possibility to extract features from image data could prospectively also allow an assessment of pollen intake and a differentiation of dead bees, drones and worker bees as well as other insects such as wasps or hornets.
      The technology was validated in different studies with regards to its scalability and its ability to extract motion and feature related information.
      The prospective possibilities were analyzed regarding their potential to enable advances both within ecotoxicological research and the monitoring of pollinator habitats.
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.064
  • Pollinator monitoring in agroecosystems – general methods for
           evaluations in field studies

    • Authors: Julian Fricke, Olaf Klein, Silvio Knäbe
      Pages: 129 - 131
      Abstract: Extensive knowledge of the occurrence, condition and population changes of wild bee communities in agroecosystems is important. The knowledge is needed to understand the complexity of potential exposure routes to plant protection products in specific crops and agricultural scenarios or to evaluate possible impacts of treatments at a landscape scale taking into account other influencing parameters like the cultivation system or management practices.
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.057
  • Development and validation of a bumble bee adult chronic oral test

    • Authors: Nina Exeler, Anja Quambusch, Nicole Hanewald, Arnaud Zicot, Eugenia Soler, Annette Kling, Steven Vinall, K. Dressler, Verena Tänzler, Stefan Kimmel, David M. Lehmann, Michael Patnaude, Ana R. Cabrera
      Pages: 132 - 132
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
  • Method development for a larval test design for the solitary bee Osmia
           cornuta - First experiences with different larval pollen provisions

    • Authors: Nina Exeler, Anja Quambusch
      Pages: 132 - 132
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.059
  • Interactions between Bombus terrestris and glyphosate-treated plants: are
           bees at risk of herbicide exposure'

    • Authors: Linzi J. Thompson, Jane C. Stout, Dara A. Stanley
      Pages: 133 - 133
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.060
  • Pesticide residues and transformation products in honeybees: A 2018 mid-
           2019 appraisal

    • Authors: Konstantinos M. Kasiotis, Effrosyni Zafeiraki, Pelagia Anastasiadou, Electra Manea-Karga, Kyriaki Machera
      Pages: 134 - 134
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.061
  • Assessment of the impact of microbial plant protection products containing
           Bacillus thuringiensis on the survival of adult and larval honeybees (Apis
           mellifera, L.)

    • Authors: Charlotte Steinigeweg, Abdulrahim T. Alkassab, Jakob H. Eckert, Dania Richter, Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 135 - 135
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.062
  • Investigating the transfer of acaricides from beeswax into honey, nectar,
           bee bread, royal jelly and worker jelly

    • Authors: Jakob H. Eckert, Lara Lindemann, Abdulrahim T. Alkassab, Gabriela Bischoff, Robert Kreuzig, Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 136 - 136
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.063
  • List of participants

    • Authors: Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 137 - 148
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
  • Authors

    • Authors: Jens Pistorius
      Pages: 149 - 151
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
  • Hazards of pesticides to bees - 14th International Symposium of the ICP-PR
           Bee Protection Group, October 23 - 25, 2019 Bern, Switzerland -
           Proceedings -

    • Authors: Jens Pistorius, Tom Steeger
      Pages: 151 S. - 151 S.
      PubDate: 2020-05-13
      DOI: 10.5073/jka.2020.465.000
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-