首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Authors response on Schick et al. 2017 An experiment of the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honey bees; the value of a formal analysis of the data. Environ Sci Eur (2017)
【2h】

Authors response on Schick et al. 2017 An experiment of the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honey bees; the value of a formal analysis of the data. Environ Sci Eur (2017)

机译:作者对Schick等人的回应。 2017新烟碱类农药对蜜蜂影响的实验;数据的形式分析的价值。环境科学(2017)

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Whilst a formal statistical analysis of any experimental data is always preferable in principle, in the case of Pilling et al. (PLoS ONE 8:e77193, ), it is hard to see how the results of any formal analysis—including those provided by Schick et al.—could be considered reliable. Regardless of the issue of statistical analysis, there was a wealth of valuable and novel biological and chemical residue data generated under field conditions of use in Pilling et al., which when taken into consideration alongside other relevant available published data and information (i.e. expert judgement) demonstrated a low risk to honeybees from thiamethoxam when used as a seed treatment on oilseed rape. Indeed, similar conclusions have been reported in subsequent published honeybee field studies using thiamethoxam seed-treated oilseed rape, thus supporting the original conclusions of Pilling et al.
机译:虽然原则上最好对任何实验数据进行正式的统计分析,但在Pilling等人的情况下。 (PLoS ONE 8:e77193,),很难看出任何形式化分析的结果(包括Schick等人提供的结果)如何被认为是可靠的。不管统计分析的问题,在Pilling等人的现场使用条件下,都有大量有价值的,新颖的生物和化学残留数据,在与其他相关可用公开数据和信息(例如专家判断)一起考虑时)在用作油菜的种子处理剂时,证明噻虫嗪对蜜蜂的风险低。确实,在随后发表的使用噻虫嗪种子处理的油菜油菜的蜜蜂田间研究中也报道了类似的结论,从而支持了Pilling等人的原始结论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号