Paper,Author,DOI,Source Format,Product,Formulation,Active Ingredient,Crop,Foliage measurement adjective,Foliage Length,Foliage Length Units,Foliage Surface Area,Foliage Surface Area Units,Foliage Volume,Foliage Volume Units,Foliage Weight/Mass,Foliage Weight/Mass Units,Plant Component,# of Plant Components,"Plant still in ground or ""kept alive"" (e.g. in a jar with water)",Chopped/ unchopped foliage,Species,Caste/Sex,# of bees per cage,Application Rate ,Application Rate Units,Pesticide application allowed to dry on foliage AND it is unclear that residue ages take this time into account?,Pesticide Application Drying Time (h),Residue Age (h),Bees exposed to residues then moved to pesticide-free environment for observation?,Duration of exposure to residues (h),Duration of mortality observation (h),Mortality (%),Mortality CI (±),RT25 (h),Plot replicates,Paper's description of plot replicates,Cage replicates,Syrup provided during exposure period?,Syrup provided during observation period?,Syrup concentration,Syrup contents,Unusual food provided during exposure or observation?,Unusual food,Temperature,Temperature Units,Test took place outdoors/in field?,Age of bees (days),Source of bees,Mortality corrected?,Mortality corrected with Abbot's formula?,Exposure duration for mortality correction (h),Notes,Comments,Concerns,Oddities,Entry Completed,Data Accuracy Confirmed,Entry Reviewed
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,4,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,10,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,18,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,12,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,9,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,8,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,7,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,13,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,5,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,8,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,7,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,8,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.05,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,6,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,12,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,10,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,3,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,5,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,2,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,36,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,25,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,26,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 1.6%WP,WP,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,21,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,3,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,12,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,16,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,12,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,3,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,31,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,29,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,24,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2SC,SC,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,7,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,10,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,14,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,12,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,7,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,2,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,38,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,28,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,29,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,https://doi.org/10.31421/IJHS/7/1/257,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 80WDG,WDG,spinosad,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.2,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,17,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,7.22.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Biothion 4 lb EC,EC,temephos + chevron 100,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,21,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,82,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbophenothion 4 lb FP,FP,carbophenothion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,89,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Demeton 2 lb EC,EC,demeton,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,6,n,24,24,26,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 1 lb EC + toxaphene 2 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1.5 +3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,94,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dicofol 4 lb EC,EC,dicofol,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,2,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dicrotophos 9 lb EC,EC,dicrotophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,40,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,45,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 2 lb EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,71,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Gardona 2 lb EC,EC,tetrachlorvinphos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,70,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Galecron 95% SP,SP,chlordimeform,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50% WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Isopropyl parathion 3 lb EC,EC,isopropyl parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,8,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion 5 lb EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,6,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,65,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methyl parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,71,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8 lb EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Omite 6 lb EC,EC,propargite,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,18,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,50,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosalone 3 lb EC,EC,phosalone,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,14,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosphamidon 8 lb EC,EC,phosphamidon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,30,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Schradan 90% LS,LS,schradan,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,89,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Tetradifon 1 lb EC,EC,tetradifon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.75,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,20,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 50% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,5,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Biothion 4 lb EC,EC,temephos + chevron 100,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,12,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,78,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbophenothion 4 lb FP,FP,carbophenothion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,33,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Demeton 2 lb EC,EC,demeton,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,6,n,24,24,19,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 1 lb EC + toxaphene 2 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1.5 +3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,68,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dicofol 4 lb EC,EC,dicofol,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,7,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dicrotophos 9 lb EC,EC,dicrotophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,29,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,30,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 2 lb EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Gardona 2 lb EC,EC,tetrachlorvinphos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,26,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Galecron 95% SP,SP,chlordimeform,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50% WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,63,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Isopropyl parathion 3 lb EC,EC,isopropyl parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion 5 lb EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,6,n,24,24,47,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,40,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methyl parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,48,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8 lb EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,30,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Omite 6 lb EC,EC,propargite,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,12,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,66,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosalone 3 lb EC,EC,phosalone,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,13,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosphamidon 8 lb EC,EC,phosphamidon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,23,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,63,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Schradan 90% LS,LS,schradan,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,6,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Tetradifon 1 lb EC,EC,tetradifon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.75,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,5,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 50% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,31,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Biothion 4 lb EC,EC,temephos + chevron 100,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,9,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,69,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbophenothion 4 lb FP,FP,carbophenothion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,6,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Demeton 2 lb EC,EC,demeton,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,6,n,24,24,1,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 1 lb EC + toxaphene 2 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1.5 +3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,55,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dicofol 4 lb EC,EC,dicofol,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,8,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dicrotophos 9 lb EC,EC,dicrotophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,7,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,4,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 2 lb EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,11,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Gardona 2 lb EC,EC,tetrachlorvinphos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,4,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Galecron 95% SP,SP,chlordimeform,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50% WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,98,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Isopropyl parathion 3 lb EC,EC,isopropyl parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion 5 lb EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,6,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,1,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methyl parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,89,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8 lb EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,21,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Omite 6 lb EC,EC,propargite,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,1,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,10,n,24,24,41,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosalone 3 lb EC,EC,phosalone,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosphamidon 8 lb EC,EC,phosphamidon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,48,n,24,24,10,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,3,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Schradan 90% LS,LS,schradan,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Tetradifon 1 lb EC,EC,tetradifon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.75,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 50% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,17,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 2 lb EC + toxaphene 8 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1.5 + 3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,87,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,98,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,8,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 2 lb EC + toxaphene 8 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1.5 + 3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,75,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,96,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,31,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 2 lb EC + toxaphene 8 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1.5 + 3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,58,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,93,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,87,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,20,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 2 lb EC + toxaphene 8 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus centralis,worker,10,1.5 + 3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,51,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus centralis,worker,10,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,89,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus centralis,worker,10,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,91,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus centralis,worker,10,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,3,n,24,24,43,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 2 lb EC + toxaphene 8 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1.5 + 3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,74,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,93,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,1,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 2 lb EC + toxaphene 8 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1.5 + 3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,51,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,97,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,81,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,14,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT 2 lb EC + toxaphene 8 lb EC,EC + EC,DDT + toxaphene,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1.5 + 3.0,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,27,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl 80% WP,WP,carbaryl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,85,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,parathion,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,61,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Trichlorfon 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,7,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,96,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Formetanate 98% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,52,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,69,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,47,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,16,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Formetanate 98% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,65,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,81,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,47,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,33,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Formetanate 98% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,2,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,79,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,17,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus rufocinctus,worker,10,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,33,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Formetanate 98% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus rufocinctus,worker,10,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus rufocinctus,worker,10,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,43,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Bombus rufocinctus,worker,10,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"nests, unclear if managed, unclear if on site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,79,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Formetanate 98% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,38,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,19,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,13,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Formetanate 98% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,37,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,23,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""foliage samples were cut into short lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,12.5,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,9,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,honey syrup,unstated,N/A,88,F,n,unstated,emerged incubated field-collected stocks,unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,6,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Formetanate 98% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,3,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,1,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,16,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of Field-Weathered Insecticide Residues to Four Kinds of Bees,Johansen et al. 1972,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Methomyl 90% WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,75,0.5,lb/ac,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unclear,"""Field-weathered residue samples were obtained by applying the test materials toÉ plots of alfalfa...Samples of foliage were taken from each plot at desired intervals after applicationÉ""",4,y,y,unstated,sugar syrup,unstated,N/A,78,F,n,unstated,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"Cage replicate quotes: Ò[Apis and Bombus] Test exposure were replicated by caging [bees]Éwith each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time intervalÉ [Nomia and Megachile] Test exposures were replicated by caging 20-30 leafcutters or 10-15 alkali bees with each of 4 foliage samples/treatment at each time interval.Ó Some of my recorded data (the data from Table 1) is Òa survey of previously obtained comparative data for the alfalfa leafcutter bee, the alkali bee, and the honey bee.Ó I imagine the methods described in this paper align with the methods used to generate this comparative data. Furthermore, this paper is not a review paper (by my conclusion), so on 8/22 I concluded that there should not be a problem including this data in our analysis. It is worth noting that I initially recorded a value of ÒunclearÓ for the cage replicates for the Nomia and Megachile records. When I reread this paper on 8/22/19, I concluded that there were actually 4 cage replicates for those experiments, and I updated the records accordingly.",,,,7.23.19,8.12.19,8/22/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,Methomyl 2% dust,D,methomyl,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,1,lb ai/ac,unstated,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,98,unstated,,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,"D is the EPA formulation for dust, according to the NPIC page on pesticide formulations consulted on 8/19 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/formulations.html#references) and University of Florida Extension publication PI231 ""Pesticide Formulations"" (https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI23100.pdf).","Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"" ",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,methomyl 90 WP ,WP,methomyl,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,1,lb ai/ac,unstated,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,1,unstated,,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,18 or 20 or (10 to 35),C,n,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"" ",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,methomyl 1.8 LS + fundal 97 SP,LS + SP,methomyl + chlordimeform,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,0.225 + 0.24,lb ai/ac,unstated,N/A,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,100,unstated,,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"" ",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,methomyl 1.8 LS,LS,methomyl,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,0.225,lb ai/ac,unstated,N/A,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,28,unstated,,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"" ",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,methomyl 90 WP + Adhere ,WP + unstated,methomyl + adjuvant,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,0.9 + 4 oz/ac,lb ai/ac (methomyl product),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,16,unstated,,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unclear,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,several potential temperatures given for Methomyl 90 WP alone. Unsure if Methomyl 90 WP was kept at those same temperatures when tank mixed.,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"". Mixed with adjuvant",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,methomyl 90 WP,WP,methomyl,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,0.9,lb ai/ac,unstated,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,39,unstated,,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,18 or 20 or (10 to 35),C,n,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"" ",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,methomyl 90 WP + Plyac,WP + unstated,methomyl + adjuvant,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,0.9 + 4 oz/ac,lb ai/ac (methomyl product),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,39,unstated,,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unclear,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,several potential temperatures given for Methomyl 90 WP alone. Unsure if Methomyl 90 WP was kept at those same temperatures when tank mixed.,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"". Mixed with adjuvant",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,,unstated,methomyl,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,0.45,lb ai/ac,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,2,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"" ",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Methomyl and Honey Bees,Mayer et al. n.d.,none,uncertain,,unstated,methomyl,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,Apis mellifera,unstated,unstated,0.9,lb ai/ac,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,6,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,,"Only information on methods: ""standard bioassay method"" ",,,7.23.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,63,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,3,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,95,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,63,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,6,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,58,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,73,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,29,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,44,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,75,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,7,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,10,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,40,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,94,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,50,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,2,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,20,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,6,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,46,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,11,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,10,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,17,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,3,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,worker,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,on-site colonies purchased from a company,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,63,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,10,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,52,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,48,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,23,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,12,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,73,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,68,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,4,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,29,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,20,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,99,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,96,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,79,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,31,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,8,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,85,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,unclear if on-site or commercial colony,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,76,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,15,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,73,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,36,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,67,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,76,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,29,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,17,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,40,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,92,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,36,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,15,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,39,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,6,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nest site,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,83,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,27,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,48,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,69,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,45,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Furadan 4F,F,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.275,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ammo 2.5E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,75,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Decis 0.2E,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.209,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,19,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Danitol 2.4EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.22,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carzol 92SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Monitor 4EC,EC,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.75,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Supracide 2E,E,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.825,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Penncap-MS 2F,F,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.55,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vydate 2L,L,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Ambush 2E,E,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.055,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,89,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Samite 75WP,WP,pyridaben,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,0.44,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,6,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidan 50WP,WP,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Larvin 3.2AF,AF,thiocarb,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,50,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
Susceptibility of four bee species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to field weathered insecticide residues,Mayer et al. 1997,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dylox 80SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,25,1.1,kg ai/h,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,25,unstated,,unstated,"MAYBE IMPLIES PLOT REPLICATES --> ""Tests of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval (Table I)""","bees caged with ""with each of 4 foliage samples per treatment and time interval."" Unclear exactly how many replicates ",y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,Abbot's used to correct for natural mortality- I assumed this meant the mortality of the controls. ,,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,8.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.04,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,16.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.08,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,16.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,4.17,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,4.17,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,4.17,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,18.5,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,23,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,46,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,50,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,66.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.04,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,66.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.08,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,16.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,25,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,12.5,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,8.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,18.5,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,8.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,23,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,50,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,46,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,58.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,75,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.04,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,75,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.08,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,83.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,37.5,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,20.83,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Success EC,EC,spinosad,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,0.2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,8.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,18.5,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,16.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,23,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,58.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Pristine G,G,pyraclostrobin and boscalid,Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,queen,2,46,oz/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,58.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was collectedf rom an unsprayed planting at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center (NWREC)Épesticides were applied to plant material within cagesÉ""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.04,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.08,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,12.5,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.38,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.5,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,16.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.5,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,83.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.06,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,87.5,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,91.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,24,24,95.83,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,33.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.04,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,33.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.08,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,33.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.38,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,37.5,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.5,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,25,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,33.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.5,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,95.83,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.06,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,95.83,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,91.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,48,48,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.03,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,41.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.04,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,54.17,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Admire 2 SC,SC,imidacloprid,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.08,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,62.5,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.38,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,41.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.5,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,45.83,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Metasystox-R (MSR) EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,58.33,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.5,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Lorsban Advanced EW,EW,chlorpyrifos,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.06,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,95.83,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.1,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,91.67,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
"Impact of pesticide residues on a native bumble nee polinator, Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Skyrm and Rao n.d.,none,uncertain,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,Red clover (Trifolium pratense),none,,,,,,,15.5,g,"flowers, leaves, and stems",unstated,,"""flowers,leaves,and stems were condensed to 2.5-5 cm lengths""",Bombus vosnesenskii,worker,4,0.2,lb/acre,n,N/A,1 to 2,unstated,72,72,100,unstated,,none,"""plant material was taken from an unsprayed fieldÉPesticides were applied to plant material within cages""",6,y,y,50%,nectar solution,no,N/A,28,C,n,unstated,collected from wild,n,N/A,unstated,"""After application, residues were allowed to dry for a period of 1-2 hours prior to the introduction of bees."" So, this paper did let their residues dry, but the residue age is stated as the duration for which residues were allowed to dry. In this sheet, when I am talking about ""dry time,"" I am referring to papers that state that they let their residues dry, AND present their residue ages in a way that leaves it unclear whether the duration for which residues were allowed to dry was ever incorporated into the residue age calculation. This paper does NOT have that oddity, despite stating that residues were allowed to dry. All the plant material came from ""a field,"" (singular) so I gathered that there were no replicates. Pesticides were applied after plant material was harvested, too.",,,,7.24.19,8.7.19,8.20.19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,Assail,unstated,acetamiprid,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,Capture,unstated,bifenthrin,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,>96,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,Calypso,unstated,thiacloprid,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,48,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,Carzol,unstated,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated legibily,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,Clutch,unstated,clothianidin,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,24,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,Diamond,unstated,novaluron,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,MSR,unstated,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
Management of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour n.d.,none,presentation,Steward,unstated,indoxacarb,alfalfa,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,NA,N/A,unstated,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,No information on methods. I even had to infer the crop from which foliage was taken. No information on application rate. Skimmed presentation and this information does not appear to be mentioned on any preceding slides. I suppose we can assume that these products were applied at the label rate. Not sure what to do with this data.,,,,7.26.19,8.12.19,8/27/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Acramite 4SC,SC,bifenazate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,11.25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Actara,unstated,thiamethoxam,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Agrimek + oil,unstated + unstated,abamectin + oil,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,15,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Assail 70 WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,1.25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,2.5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Calypso,unstated,thiacloprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,12.5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Comite,unstated,propargite,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Dibrom,unstated,naled,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,22.5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Fujimite,unstated,fenpyroximate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,27.5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Oberon,unstated,spiromesifen,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,1.19,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Provado,unstated,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,8.75,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Rimon,unstated,novaluron,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,3.75,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Zeal,unstated,etoxazole,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,2,n,24,24,4.7,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Acramite 4SC,SC,bifenazate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,16.25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Actara,unstated,thiamethoxam,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,2.5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Agrimek + oil,unstated + unstated,abamectin + oil,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,6.25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Assail 70 WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,7.5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Calypso,unstated,thiacloprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,5,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Comite,unstated,propargite,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,11.25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Dibrom,unstated,naled,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,15,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Fujimite,unstated,fenpyroximate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,13.75,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Oberon,unstated,spiromesifen,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,16.25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Provado,unstated,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,2.38,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Rimon,unstated,novaluron,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,3.75,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Zeal,unstated,etoxazole,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,4.25,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Acramite 4SC,SC,bifenazate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Actara,unstated,thiamethoxam,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,81.42,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Assail 70 WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,14.47,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,3.56,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Comite,unstated,propargite,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,33.94,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Dibrom,unstated,naled,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,93.77,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Fujimite,unstated,fenpyroximate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,55.64,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Oberon,unstated,spiromesifen,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,87.3,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Provado,unstated,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,20.3,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Rimon,unstated,novaluron,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Success,unstated,spinosad,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,72.17,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Zeal,unstated,etoxazole,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,1,n,24,24,10.16,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Acramite 4SC,SC,bifenazate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,3.17,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Actara,unstated,thiamethoxam,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,100,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Assail 70 WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,0.65,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Comite,unstated,propargite,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Dibrom,unstated,naled,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,0.9,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Fujimite,unstated,fenpyroximate,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Oberon,unstated,spiromesifen,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,40.37,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Provado,unstated,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Rimon,unstated,novaluron,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Success,unstated,spinosad,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,67.18,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Zeal,unstated,etoxazole,alfalfa,about,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,"y, ""clipped to 1 in lengths""",Megachile rotundata,no informatiion provided,20,"""maximum label rate for registered products or at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,24,24,4.05,unstated,,unstated,paper says pesticides were applied to plots plural,4,y,y,1:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,"""collected""",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Assail 70 WP,WP,acetamiprid,forage alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,hay,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,1,"""a little over"" 1",9.82,unstated,,unstated,paper mentions applying pesticides to plots plural,10,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,70,F,n,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",Application rate description may be the same as that of the M. rotundata trials. Report was unclear,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Rimon,unstated,novaluron,forage alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,hay,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,1,"""a little over"" 1",2.99,unstated,,unstated,paper mentions applying pesticides to plots plural,10,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,70,F,n,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",Application rate description may be the same as that of the M. rotundata trials. Report was unclear,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
2005-2007 Alfalfa Seed Research Report,Walsh et al. 2008,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,forage alfalfa,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,hay,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,8,n,1,"""a little over"" 1",2.29,unstated,,unstated,paper mentions applying pesticides to plots plural,10,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,70,F,n,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) While specific application rates were unstated, Walsh et al. 2008 did say that for the trialsÒproductsÉwere tested at the maximum rate the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed.Ó (2) Description of replicates: MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 4 times with 4 foliage samples per treatment and time intervalÓ NOMIA MELANDERI ÒAbout 10 alkali bees were then placed in 10 replicate tray arenas per treatment.Ó  NOMIA MELANDERI TRIALS: The paper stated that Òbees were held in a portable growth chamber at 70¡F and transported back to our laboratory in Prosser, where they were evaluated a little over an hour after exposure.Ó I interpreted this as meaning that the bees were held at 70 F for the duration of exposure. This interpretation is reflected in these records.",Application rate description may be the same as that of the M. rotundata trials. Report was unclear,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/22/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,Assail,unstated,acetamiprid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,1,unstated,24,24,53,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,4,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,24,"Application Rate: ""[applied at] maximum label rate if registered or at the maximum rate thatÉ the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,Belay,unstated,clothianidin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,1,unstated,24,24,95.2,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,4,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,n,unstated,unstated,"Application Rate: ""[applied at] maximum label rate if registered or at the maximum rate thatÉ the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,1,unstated,24,24,12.3,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,4,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,n,unstated,unstated,"Application Rate: ""[applied at] maximum label rate if registered or at the maximum rate thatÉ the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,Fujimite,unstated,fenpyroximate,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,1,unstated,24,24,10.2,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,4,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,n,unstated,unstated,"Application Rate: ""[applied at] maximum label rate if registered or at the maximum rate thatÉ the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,JMS Stylet Oil,unstated,paraffinic oil,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,1,unstated,24,24,8.2,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,4,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,n,unstated,unstated,"Application Rate: ""[applied at] maximum label rate if registered or at the maximum rate thatÉ the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,unspecified (might have been TGAI),unstated,metaflumizone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,1,unstated,24,24,1.1,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,4,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,n,unstated,unstated,"Application Rate: ""[applied at] maximum label rate if registered or at the maximum rate thatÉ the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,Zeal,unstated,etoxazole,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,1,unstated,24,24,11,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,4,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,n,unstated,unstated,"Application Rate: ""[applied at] maximum label rate if registered or at the maximum rate thatÉ the registrants suggested for the use of their product for insect or mite control on alfalfa seed""",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,Assail,unstated,acetamiprid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,48,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,y,unstated,24,"These data are from a second study conducted in 2009, and not from the 2008 study that this source discusses first. The 2009 study methods were not described. It is possible that Walsh et al. used the same methods in 2009 as they did in 2008 (which they describe in some detail). This is never explicitly stated, and I did not want to assume that they were the same. Hence, there are many more values of ""unstated"" for these records, than there are for the records of their 2008 data.",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,indoxacarb,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,8,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,"These data are from a second study conducted in 2009, and not from the 2008 study that this source discusses first. The 2009 study methods were not described. It is possible that Walsh et al. used the same methods in 2009 as they did in 2008 (which they describe in some detail). This is never explicitly stated, and I did not want to assume that they were the same. Hence, there are many more values of ""unstated"" for these records, than there are for the records of their 2008 data.",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,chlorantraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,20,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,"These data are from a second study conducted in 2009, and not from the 2008 study that this source discusses first. The 2009 study methods were not described. It is possible that Walsh et al. used the same methods in 2009 as they did in 2008 (which they describe in some detail). This is never explicitly stated, and I did not want to assume that they were the same. Hence, there are many more values of ""unstated"" for these records, than there are for the records of their 2008 data.",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,Assail,unstated,acetamiprid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,32,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,y,unstated,8,"These data are from a second study conducted in 2009, and not from the 2008 study that this source discusses first. The 2009 study methods were not described. It is possible that Walsh et al. used the same methods in 2009 as they did in 2008 (which they describe in some detail). This is never explicitly stated, and I did not want to assume that they were the same. Hence, there are many more values of ""unstated"" for these records, than there are for the records of their 2008 data.",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,indoxacarb,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,"These data are from a second study conducted in 2009, and not from the 2008 study that this source discusses first. The 2009 study methods were not described. It is possible that Walsh et al. used the same methods in 2009 as they did in 2008 (which they describe in some detail). This is never explicitly stated, and I did not want to assume that they were the same. Hence, there are many more values of ""unstated"" for these records, than there are for the records of their 2008 data.",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Integrated Pest Management on Alfalfa Seed: A Two-Year Report 2008-2009,Walsh et al. 2010,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,chlorantraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,unstated,12,unstated,unstated,"unstated, but report mentions applying treatments to plots plural",N/A,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,unstated,"These data are from a second study conducted in 2009, and not from the 2008 study that this source discusses first. The 2009 study methods were not described. It is possible that Walsh et al. used the same methods in 2009 as they did in 2008 (which they describe in some detail). This is never explicitly stated, and I did not want to assume that they were the same. Hence, there are many more values of ""unstated"" for these records, than there are for the records of their 2008 data.",,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/28/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,4,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,0.5,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,4.1,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,1.4,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,65.8,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,64.8,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,50,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,28.6,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,54.1,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,3.3,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,1.7,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,1.7,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,59.5,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,54.3,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,53.7,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,39.4,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,42.2,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,7.2,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,4.4,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,6.5,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,52.9,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,12.1,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,4.7,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Megachile rotundata,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,8,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected with barrier near outdoor bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,4.9,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,0.2,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,4.3,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,2,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,46.5,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,70,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,59,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,22.4,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,8.8,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,2,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,0.8,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,GF-2032 SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,1.9,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,41.1,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,35.8,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,58.6,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,Rycar 15EC,EC,tolfenpyrad,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,27,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,29.3,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,19.2,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,10,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,3,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,8,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated ,unstated,17.5,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated ,unstated,15.1,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated ,unstated,0,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2011,Walsh 2011,none,IPM Report,unstated; may have been TGAI,unstated,experimental compound,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,"y, clipped to 1 in lengths",Nomia melanderi,female,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,168,unstated,unstated ,unstated,2,unstated,,unstated,"report mentions applying pesticides to plots, plural",5,y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,31.5,collected outdoors,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) No duration of observation was explicitly stated, but I may be able to infer that it is 24h. The quote from the report that could support this assumption is: ÒDr. Dan Mayer had concluded thatÉ Evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are actively foraging.Ó It seems like this is a set up for interpreting 24 h mortality data, but they never explicitly state for how long they observed bees in cages. (2) I determined that there were 5 cage replicates from this quote: ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 4 time intervals ( I hour, 8 hours, 1 day, and 1 week) after the insecticides were appliedÓ",Assumed 24 h mortality duration,,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/22/19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,3.7,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,4.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Brigade 2 EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,90.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Brigade 2 EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,65.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Brigade 2 EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,68.7,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,6.1,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,7.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.3,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,0.1,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,11,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,4.7,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.6,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,6.7,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand with screen mesh barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.6,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,2.4,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.4,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Brigade 2 EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,98,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Brigade 2 EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,96,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Brigade 2 EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,94,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,7,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,0.8,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.1,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.6,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,6.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,3.2,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on alkali bees and pollinator pesticide safety in Washington State ,Vinchesi et al. 2013,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,3.6,unstated,,"unstated, but paper mentions applying insecticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,"5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,unstated,unstated,75,F,n,unstated,collected near bee shelter with small screen barrier,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) I am fairly confident that bees were not removed from the pesticide environment to be assessed for mortality, that bees were exposed to the residues continuously, and that the duration of exposure to the residues is the same as the duration of mortality observation. However, this duration is never stated in this report. It is unclear for how long bees were exposed to pesticides (and therefore, whether these are 24 h mortality counts, 48 h, 72 h, etc.). This duration is never implied, either. (2) The number of cage replicates was unclear. The paper said that ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated 5 times per candidate insecticide at 3 time intervals (1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 day,) after the insecticides were applied.Ó Does this mean that for each active ingredient there were 15 replicates (5 cages x 3 residue ages)? I think I have been primarily interpreting cage replicates in terms of replicates for each insecticide treatment, not residue age. However, for many papers, those numbers are the same (e..g, 4 replicates per treatment and time interval). For now (8/27/19), I recorded cage replicates as Ò5 insecticide treatment, 3 residue age.Ó","Unsure of duration of RT25. Report mentions that ""evidence of mortality greater than 25% on residues greater than 24 hours in age should not be applied during bloom when bees are acrively foraging."" This makes me think that the mortality %ages he reports are greater than 25. Otherwise that information would have had no relevance to his reported data",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8.27.19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.6,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,2.4,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.4,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,98,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,96,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,94,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfloxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfloxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,7,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfloxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,0.8,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.1,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,1.6,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,6.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,3.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,3.6,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected individually near bee shelter,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,3.7,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,4.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,90.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,65.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Brigade 2EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,6.4,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,68.7,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfloxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,6.1,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfloxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,7.2,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Transform 2SC,SC,sulfloxaflor,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,3,oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.3,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,0.1,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,11,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,7,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,4.7,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,4,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,5.6,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Studies on Alkali Bees and Pollinator Pesticide Safety in Washington State,Vinchesi et al. 2014,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,approximately,400,cm,,,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1 in lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,14,fl oz/acre,n,N/A,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,6.7,unstated,,"unstated, but the report mentions applying pesticides to plots plural",N/A,"5 ai, 3 residue age",y,y,91:1 ratio,syrup,n,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected by hand ,y,unstated,unstated,Durations of exposure and observation are unstated.,,,,7.26.19,8.7.19,8/28/19
Bloom Period Management of Lygus bug in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour 2014,none,presentation,Assail,unstated,acetamiprid,alfalfa,approximately equal to (~),,,,,400,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,labeled rates,unstated,n,N/A,"2,8,24,48,96",n,24,24,unstated,unstated,4,4,"""Experimental design: *4 rows x 30ft *Randomized complete block *Treatments: insecticides at labeled rates *4 replications",unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,31.5,collected from domiciles in grower fields,y,unstated,unstated,,"Mentions durations residues were allowed to weather, but just reports RT25s",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/27/19
Bloom Period Management of Lygus bug in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour 2014,none,presentation,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,approximately equal to (~),,,,,400,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,labeled rates,unstated,n,N/A,"2,8,24,48,96",n,24,24,unstated,unstated,2,4,"""Experimental design: *4 rows x 30ft *Randomized complete block *Treatments: insecticides at labeled rates *4 replications",unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,31.5,collected from domiciles in grower fields,y,unstated,unstated,,"Mentions durations residues were allowed to weather, but just reports RT25s",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/27/19
Bloom Period Management of Lygus bug in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour 2014,none,presentation,Capture,unstated,bifenthrin,alfalfa,approximately equal to (~),,,,,400,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,labeled rates,unstated,n,N/A,"2,8,24,48,96",n,24,24,unstated,unstated,>96,4,"""Experimental design: *4 rows x 30ft *Randomized complete block *Treatments: insecticides at labeled rates *4 replications",unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,31.5,collected from domiciles in grower fields,y,unstated,unstated,,"Mentions durations residues were allowed to weather, but just reports RT25s",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/27/19
Bloom Period Management of Lygus bug in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour 2014,none,presentation,Carzol,unstated,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,approximately equal to (~),,,,,400,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,labeled rates,unstated,n,N/A,"2,8,24,48,96",n,24,24,unstated,unstated,4,4,"""Experimental design: *4 rows x 30ft *Randomized complete block *Treatments: insecticides at labeled rates *4 replications",unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,31.5,collected from domiciles in grower fields,y,unstated,unstated,,"Mentions durations residues were allowed to weather, but just reports RT25s",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/27/19
Bloom Period Management of Lygus bug in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour 2014,none,presentation,Rimon,unstated,novaluron,alfalfa,approximately equal to (~),,,,,400,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,labeled rates,unstated,n,N/A,"2,8,24,48,96",n,24,24,unstated,unstated,4,4,"""Experimental design: *4 rows x 30ft *Randomized complete block *Treatments: insecticides at labeled rates *4 replications",unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,31.5,collected from domiciles in grower fields,y,unstated,unstated,,"Mentions durations residues were allowed to weather, but just reports RT25s",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/27/19
Bloom Period Management of Lygus bug in Alfalfa Seed,Barbour 2014,none,presentation,Transform,unstated,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,approximately equal to (~),,,,,400,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,unstated,25,labeled rates,unstated,n,N/A,"2,8,24,48,96",n,24,24,unstated,unstated,2,4,"""Experimental design: *4 rows x 30ft *Randomized complete block *Treatments: insecticides at labeled rates *4 replications",unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,31.5,collected from domiciles in grower fields,y,unstated,unstated,,"Mentions durations residues were allowed to weather, but just reports RT25s",,,7.26.19,8.14.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Cobalt,unstated,chlorpyrifos and lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,16,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,96,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,2.8,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,0,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Transform,unstated,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,2.25,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,6,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyridifurone,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Megachile rotundata,unstated,20,14,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,2,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Cobalt,unstated,chlorpyrifos and lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,16,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,100,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Beleaf,unstated,flonicamid,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.8,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,0,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Transform,unstated,sulfoxaflor,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,2.25,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,10,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pest and Pollinator Management on Alfalfa Seed 2015,Walsh et al. 2016,none,IPM report,Sivanto,unstated,flupyridifurone,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,clipped to 1-inch lengths,Nomia melanderi,unstated,10,14,oz/acre,unstated,N/A,1,n,8,8,4,unstated,,"unstated, but surce mentions applying pesticide treatments to plots plural",N/A,unclear,y,y,unstated,dilute syrup,unstated,N/A,75,F,n,unstated,collected,y,unstated,unstated,"(1) ÒField-weathered residual test exposures were replicated in 10 foliage samples per treatmentÉ Residual test exposures were replicated 4 timesÉÓ So, were there 4 cage replicates or 10 cage replicates? For now (8/27), I will just record the cage replicates for this source as ÒunclearÓ",,,,7.26.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,acephate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45 to 0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,azinphosmethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.33,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,70,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,bromophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,bromophos-ethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,70 to >168,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Sevin-4-oil,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Sevin-4-oil ULV,ULV,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,3,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Sevin XLR,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,168 to >336,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbophenothion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,43,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbosulfan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,52,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,chlordimeform,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.07,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,DDT,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,1.8,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,20 to 42,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,demeton,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.2,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,diazinon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,46,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dicofol,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dicrotophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,4 to 66,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,diflubenzuron,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.1,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 6,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,72 to >72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dioxathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,9,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,disulfoton,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,13,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,33 to 80,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,endrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,62,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,ethion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,etrimfos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>120,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenthion ULV,ULV,fenthion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,9,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,fluvalinate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,4 to 14,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,isofenphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,isopropyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,leptophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,27 to 30,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,malathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,57,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion ULV,ULV,malathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.56,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,158,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,menazon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,22 to >120,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,12 to 64,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methomyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.4,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,6 to 15,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methoxychlor,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,2 to 4,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,22,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,mevinphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,monochrotophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,naled,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,54,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,oxydemetonmethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,15 to 64,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>48,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phenthoate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosalone,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,1.34,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosphamidon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,52,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phostex,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phoxim,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,1.34,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>48,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,pirimicarb,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.2,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,pirimiphos-ethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>48,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,pirimiphos-methyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,9,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,profenofos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,propargite,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,1.3 to 1.8,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Propoxur ULV,ULV,propoxur,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.14,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,ronnel,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,70,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,schradan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,temephos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.5,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,2 to 40,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,TEPP,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,tetrachlorvinphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,tetradifon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<3,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,thiodicarb,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,8,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,toxaphene,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,78 to 168,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,toxaphene +/and DDT,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,1.3+2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,27 to 95,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.","Unclear if one product with two active ingredients, or two products mixed together",,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Megachile rotundata,unstated,30,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in leaf piece cells ,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,acephate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45 to 0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,70 to >168,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Sevin-4-oil,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,168 to >336,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbophenothion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,9,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,chlordimeform,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,demeton,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.2,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,diazinon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,34,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dicrotophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,52 to 96,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,diflubenzuron,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.1,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 6,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,52 to >72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,disulfoton,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,endrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,27,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,etrimfos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>120,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,7,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,fluvalinate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,26,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,3 to 9,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,isofenphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,isopropyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,leptophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,2 to 16,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,19 to 102,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,13 to 74,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methomyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.4,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,5 to 8,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methoxychlor,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,21,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,mevinphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,monochrotophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,naled,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,20 to 46,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,47,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,oxydemetonmethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,21 to 27,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,32 to 42,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phenthoate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosalone,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,1.34,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosphamidon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,25 to 46,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phoxim,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,1.34,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,37,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,pirimicarb,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.2,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,profenofos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,propargite,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,1.3 to 1.8,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,schradan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,temephos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.5,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 15,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,TEPP,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,tetrachlorvinphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,10,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,tetradifon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,toxaphene,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,10,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,toxaphene +/and DDT,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,1.3+2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,13 to 52,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.","Unclear if one product with two active ingredients, or two products mixed together",,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Nomia melanderi,unstated,15,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,6 to 14,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,1,emerged incubated prepupae in soil cores,unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,acephate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45 to 0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,azinphosmethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.33,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,61,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,bromophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,14,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,bromophos-ethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,30,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,70 to >168,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Sevin-4-oil,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Sevin-4-oil ULV,ULV,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Sevin XLR,unstated,carbaryl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbofuran,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,168 to >336,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbophenothion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,carbosulfan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,chlordimeform,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.07,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,DDT,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,1.8,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<4 to 42,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,demeton,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.2,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,diazinon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,49,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dicofol,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dicrotophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,21 to 37,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,diflubenzuron,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.1,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 6,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,7 to >72,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,dioxathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,disulfoton,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 3,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,endrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,ethion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<3,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,etrimfos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>63,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenthion ULV,ULV,fenthion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,6,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,fluvalinate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,isofenphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,isopropyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,leptophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 3,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,malathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,40,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion ULV,ULV,malathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.56,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,131,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,menazon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methamidophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,7 to 25,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methidathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,24 to 80,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methomyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.4,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methoxychlor,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,20,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,mevinphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,monochrotophos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,naled,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,12 to 20,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,12,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,oxydemetonmethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,parathion,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,13 to 18,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,permethrin,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,14 to 42,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phenthoate,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosalone,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,1.34,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosmet,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,>24,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phosphamidon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,16 to 40,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phostex,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,phoxim,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,1.34,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,39,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,pirimicarb,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.2,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,pirimiphos-ethyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,29,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,pirimiphos-methyl,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,7,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,profenofos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,9,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,propargite,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,1.3 to 1.8,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Propoxur ULV,ULV,propoxur,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.14,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,ronnel,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,30,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,schradan,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,temephos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,TEPP,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.45,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<5,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,tetrachlorvinphos,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,tetradifon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,thiodicarb,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,toxaphene,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<2 to 4,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,toxaphene +/and DDT,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,1.3+2.7,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,8 to 32,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.","Unclear if one product with two active ingredients, or two products mixed together",,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Pesticides and Bees,Johansen et al. 1983,none,peer-reviewed journal article,unstated,unstated,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,,,,,500,cm3,,,foliage,unstated,n,"""clipped into 2.5- to 5-cm lengths""",Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.9,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,unstated,n,"24, 48, 72","24, 48, and 72",,unstated,<3 to 6,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution OR honey and water,unstated,N/A,30.25,C,n,21,"managed colonies, unclear if on-site",unstated,N/A,unstated,"This paper was a summary of 30 years of work by Johansen and collaborators. The methods presented in this paper are a summary of the methods Johansen and his colleagues have employed over their career, and are somewhat vague. I was only able to pull out info from 1 data table, because it was the only data that seemed to be the result of a toxicity of residues on foliage-like test. The other tables were not associated with any methods, and I have no idea what methods led to those results. Furthermore, the methods described for the residual toxicity data are a SUMMARY of the methods he employed over 30 years. Therefore, it is possible that the methods used in studies to generate data for some of the active ingredients deviated from what was described in this paper. No residue ages, durations of RT25, or definitive durations of exposure and observation were provided.",,,,7.29.19,8.15.19,8/27/19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbendazim WP,WP,carbendazim,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbendazim and Iprodione WP,WP,carbendazim and iprodione,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diethofencarb and Carbendazim WP,WP,diethofencarb and carbendazim,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dichlofluanid WP,WP,dichlofluanid,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,3.3,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Triflumizol WP,WP,triflumizol,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Vinclozolin WP,WP,vinclozolin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DBEDC EC,EC,DBEDC ,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Iprodione WP,WP,iprodione,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Iprodion and Thiophanate-Methyl WP,WP,iprodion and thiophanate-methyl,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Thiophanate-Methyl WP,WP,thiophanate-methyl,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Tolclofos-Methyl WP,WP,tolclofos-methyl,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenbuconazole and Iprodione WP,WP,fenbuconazole and iprodione,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Polyoxin B SP,SP,polyoxin B,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Procymidone WP,WP,procymidone,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,3.3,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrimethanil SC,SC,pyrimethanil,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Folpet WP,WP,folpet,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenarimol WP,WP,fenarimol,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Tebufenpyrad EC,EC,tebufenpyrad,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenpropathrin EC,EC,fenpropathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,91.7,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenpropathrin EC,EC,fenpropathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,48,48,95,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Flufenoxuron DC,DC,flufenoxuron,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Milbemectin EC,EC,milbemectin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenproprathrin EC,EC,fenproprathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,72,72,77.5,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenproprathrin EC,EC,fenproprathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,120,120,72.5,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenproprathrin EC,EC,fenproprathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,168,168,85,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenproprathrin EC,EC,fenproprathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,240,240,36.7,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenproprathrin EC,EC,fenproprathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,336,336,13.8,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenproprathrin EC,EC,fenproprathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,504,504,6.7,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Honeybee Acute and Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Registered for Strawberry,Kim et al. 2008,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fenproprathrin EC,EC,fenproprathrin,strawberry,none,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,unstated,,unclear (translation),Apis mellifera,unstated,20,"""standard concentration""",unstated,y,unstated,4,n,672,672,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,N/A,3,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,unstated,n,unstated,on-site colony,unstated,N/A,unstated,"TRANSLATED WITH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. They cite an old version of EPA's TOROF protocol, but I am not going to assume that they did anything other than what they wrote in their methods. (2) I did not record the mortality data ""0 days after exposure""  because I was unsure of the exposure time to which this corresponded. In another paper, ""0 days after exposure"" corresponded to am exposure time greater than 0 but less than 24 hours, but I cannot find such an exposure time in the translated contents of this paper. There were three active ingredients that displayed mortality 0 days after exposure, and they were: carbendazim+iprodione WP, tolclofos-methyl WP, and fenpropathrin EC. (3) The translated methods indicate that bees were exposed to the weathered pesticide residues on strawberry foliage for 24 hours. However, for the observation periods longer than 48 hours, bees must have remained cage for that same amount of time of exposure. In the translated methods, there is no mention of moving bees from the cages to a pesticide-free environment, so they must have remained caged for that long. ",,,,8.2.19,8.15.19,8.20.19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,98,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,75,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,46,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,8,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,83,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,4,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,56,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,75,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,44,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,6,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,97,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,50,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,14,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,87,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,17,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,5,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,76,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,52,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,42,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,28,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,26,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,14,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,5,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,89,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,4,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,66,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,44,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,12,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,2,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,prepupae incubated in leaf-piece cells. Emerged adults collected off windows in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,23,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,67,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,55,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,6,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,25,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,58,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,24,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,58,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Bombus occidentalis,workers,12,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,35,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,99,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,93,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,65,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,66,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,19,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,82,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,32,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,12,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,workers,50,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,91,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,"managed colony, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,81,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,18,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,23,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,3,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,12,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,7,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,1,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Acephate 75SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.45,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 2S,S,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Azinphos methyl 35WP,WP,azinphos-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl XLR 4F,F,carbaryl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Chlorpyrifos 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1E,E,cyhalothrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.68,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,3.36,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Dimethoate 2.67EC,EC,dimethoate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan 3EC,EC,endosulfan,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.84,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,54,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Esfenvalerate XL 0.66EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.056,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,4,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Imidacloprid 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.168,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,71,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion E5,E,malathion,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion/methoxychlor 4E,E,malathion and methoxychlor,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Naled 8E,E,naled,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,28,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemetonmethyl 25SC,SC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.56,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Pyrenone EC,EC,pyrethrins,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,1.12,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,2,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Differences Between Susceptibility of Four Pollinato Species (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) to Field Weathered Insecticide Residues,Mayer et al. 1994,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Zetamethrin 1.5EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa OR cranberry,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.041,kg (ai/ha),unstated,N/A,8,unstated,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,unstated,"This quote only seems to indicate that there were cage replicates, but the beginning of the Materials and Methods section mentions pesticides being applied to plots (plural): ""Treatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment 
and time interval""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,Unstated,27.5,C,n,unstated,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) AbbotÕs used to Òcorrect for the natural mortalityÓ ˆ I assume by natural mortality he meant the mortality of the control groups.  (2) I was confused by the way the # of replicates was stated. I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates and no plot (stated) plot replicates. Here is the exact quote: ÒTreatments of field-weathered insecticide residues were replicated four times with four foliage samples per treatment and time interval""",,,1 of 2 specific crops was the source of foliage (alfalfa OR cranberry),8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,87.1,6,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,60.7,14.5,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,72,n,24,24,36.6,19.1,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,168,n,24,24,6.4,2.5,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,240,n,24,24,6.1,4.1,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,96.6,2,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,96.1,1.8,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,72,n,24,24,13.9,7.3,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,168,n,24,24,10.8,4.9,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,240,n,24,24,0.8,0.8,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,98.4,0.8,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,95.4,4.6,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,72,n,24,24,34.6,17.3,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,168,n,24,24,9.1,5.1,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,240,n,24,24,1.1,0.7,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate ULV,ULV,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,0.4,0.4,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate ULV,ULV,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,0,unstated,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate EC,EC,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,5.3,1.7,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate EC,EC,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,0.4,0.4,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,93.9,2.5,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,44.1,13.7,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,72,n,24,24,14.5,4,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,168,n,24,24,19.9,15.5,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,240,n,24,24,0.8,0.5,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,95.3,1.7,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,44.4,9.7,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,72,n,24,24,6.6,2.3,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,168,n,24,24,5.1,2.9,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,240,n,24,24,1.2,0.8,Unstated,4 or 8,"""Cotton plots of four or eight rows (102 cm row spacing) by 30.5 m were treated""",5,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,72.7,5.8,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,16.7,7.8,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,5.6,3.5,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,216,n,24,24,3.1,1.8,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin ULV,ULV,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,312,n,24,24,1.5,1,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,92.8,2.8,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,94.9,2.2,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,57.7,15.4,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,216,n,24,24,27.7,16.6,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin EC,EC,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,312,n,24,24,7.1,1.2,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,92.3,4.2,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,87.5,11.8,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,18.6,6.4,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,216,n,24,24,3.6,2.1,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Permethrin WP,WP,permethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.11,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,312,n,24,24,0.5,0.5,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate ULV,ULV,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,3.9,2.6,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate ULV,ULV,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,3.8,3.3,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate ULV,ULV,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,0,unstated,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate EC,EC,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,0,unstated,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate EC,EC,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,8.3,7.6,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Fluvalinate EC,EC,fluvalinate,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,0,unstated,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin ULV,ULV,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,37.7,21.7,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin ULV,ULV,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,51.9,19.3,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin ULV,ULV,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,0.5,0.6,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin ULV,ULV,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,216,n,24,24,2.9,2.9,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin ULV,ULV,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,312,n,24,24,2,1.5,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin EC,EC,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,92.1,1.8,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin EC,EC,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,72.2,7.7,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin EC,EC,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,63,21,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin EC,EC,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,216,n,24,24,59.9,18.4,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Cypermethrin EC,EC,cypermethrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.09,kg Ai/ha,unstated,N/A,312,n,24,24,18.2,5.6,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,63.3,18,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,8.4,1.4,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,3.1,1.3,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,216,n,24,24,5.4,1.6,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin ULV,ULV,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,312,n,24,24,1.9,1.9,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,0,n,24,24,80.6,16.2,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,48,n,24,24,92.1,3.2,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,120,n,24,24,56.1,10.7,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,216,n,24,24,8.8,2.3,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
Residual Life and Toxicity to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Selected Pyrethroid Formulations Applied to Cotton in Arizona,Waller et al. 1988,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Bifenthrin EC,EC,bifenthrin,cotton,approximately,,,300,cm2,,,,,foliage,4,,unchopped,Apis mellifera,unstated,50,0.067,kg AI/ha,unstated,N/A,312,n,24,24,2,1.2,Unstated,8,"""...plots 30.5 m long were treated, but in this experiment, eight rows were treated with each insecticide separated by four buffer rows.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,n,N/A,27,C,n,unstated,"colony, unclear if on-site, I would presume managed  but this is not something that is explicitly stated. How they collected bees from the colony, to me, made it seemed like they used a managed hive",unstated,N/A,unstated,"(1) All collected honeybees were caught as they were exiting their hive- would it be safe to label them as foragers? (2) Interesting statement in the methods: ""Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 h of exposure, but only the 24-h data are presented because the mortality changed little after the first 24-h period.""(3) Residue age was expressed in days. I just multiplied each day by 24 hours, and assumed that samples were taken exactly 24 h apart. Residues that were 0 days of age were therefore recorded as being 0 hours of age (4) Each active ingredient tested was stated along with a pesticide formulation (e.g. ULV). Any record that has this information is considered to be an end-use product (and not a TGAI) for the purpose of this review. However, it is worth noting that this paper was not very clear whether specific products were used and which were used. Some specific products are mentioned in the methods, but fewer products are mentioned than there were active ingredients tested. My interpretation of this paper was that some products were cited in order to support that their application rates were field-realistic. It could have also just been for the aid of the reader (so that theyÕd have an idea of some real-world products these active ingredients correspond to). Product name might not matter if we just look at ai, and I am confident in the active ingredients I recorded.",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,2,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,97,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.5,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,97,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,63,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,2,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.5,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,95,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Carbaryl WP,WP,carbaryl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,58,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.5,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. In Table 1 in the paper, applications rate were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and 1/8"" rate. Only the full rate was specifically provided, and it was provided with 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,65,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. In Table 1 in the paper, applications rate were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and 1/8"" rate. Only the full rate was specifically provided, and it was provided with 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,43,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. In Table 1 in the paper, applications rate were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and 1/8"" rate. Only the full rate was specifically provided, and it was provided with 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,95,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.5,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,26,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. In Table 1 in the paper, applications rate were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and 1/8"" rate. Only the full rate was specifically provided, and it was provided with 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,13,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. In Table 1 in the paper, applications rate were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and 1/8"" rate. Only the full rate was specifically provided, and it was provided with 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Diazinon WP,WP,diazinon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,1,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion EC ,EC,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,97,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion EC ,EC,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,33,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ""1/8 rate."" An actual number was only provided for the full rate, and that was provided to 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion EC ,EC,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.3125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,9,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ""1/8 rate."" An actual number was only provided for the full rate, and that was provided to 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion EC ,EC,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.15625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,7,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ""1/8 rate."" An actual number was only provided for the full rate, and that was provided to 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion EC ,EC,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,66,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion EC ,EC,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,3,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ""1/8 rate."" An actual number was only provided for the full rate, and that was provided to 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion EC ,EC,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.3125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,5,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ""1/8 rate."" An actual number was only provided for the full rate, and that was provided to 3 significant figures (#.##). (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,99,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.3125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,51,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.15625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,69,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.3125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Malathion WP,WP,malathion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.15625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.3125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,67,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.15625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,18,y,1,24,25,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,98,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.3125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,5,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Phenthoate EC,EC,phenthoate,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.15625,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,42,y,1,24,2,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT EC,EC,DDT,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,2,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT EC,EC,DDT,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.5,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,3,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ?1/8 rate"". An actual number was reported only for the full rate, and it was reported to 3 significant figures (#.##) (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT EC,EC,DDT,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ?1/8 rate"". An actual number was reported only for the full rate, and it was reported to 3 significant figures (#.##) (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT WP,WP,DDT,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,100,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT WP,WP,DDT,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.5,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,65,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ?1/8 rate"". An actual number was reported only for the full rate, and it was reported to 3 significant figures (#.##) (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT WP,WP,DDT,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,49,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ?1/8 rate"". An actual number was reported only for the full rate, and it was reported to 3 significant figures (#.##) (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,DDT WP,WP,DDT,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,49,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ?1/8 rate"". An actual number was reported only for the full rate, and it was reported to 3 significant figures (#.##) (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Demeton-O-Methyl EC,EC,demeton-O-methyl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.38,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Demeton-O-Methyl EC,EC,demeton-O-methyl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.19,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Demeton-O-Methyl EC,EC,demeton-O-methyl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.095,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,3,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were expressed as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" and ?1/8 rate"". An actual number was reported only for the full rate, and it was reported to 3 significant figures (#.##) (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan EC,EC,endosulfan,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.77,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan EC,EC,endosulfan,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.385,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,2,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. App rates were stated as ""full rate"" ""1/2 rate"" ""1/4 rate"" ""1/8 rate."" An actual number was provided only for the full rate, which was expressed as 0.## (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Endosulfan EC,EC,endosulfan,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.1925,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemeton-Methyl EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.38,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemeton-Methyl EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.19,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,2,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Oxydemeton-Methyl EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.095,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,SP 80% W/W,SP,trichlorfon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,1.2,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,SP 80% W/W,SP,trichlorfon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.6,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,SP 80% W/W,SP,trichlorfon,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.3,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Vamidothion EC,EC,vamidothion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.5,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,37,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Vamidothion EC,EC,vamidothion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.25,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,5,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h. (2) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
The residual contact toxicity to honey bees of insecticides sprayed on to white clover (trifolium repens l.) in the laboratory,Clinch 1967,https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1967.10425136,peer-reviewed journal article,Vamidothion EC,EC,vamidothion,white clover,none,,,,,,,,,flowers,8,flowers kept in water,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,0.125,lb ai/ac,y,unstated,3,y,1,24,0,unstated,Unstated,N/A,"not relevant to this study. Clover flowers were cut before the start of the study, and 8 flowers were placed in water and each cage. There are cage replicates in this study, but no plot replicates, because the cage was the plot in a way.",6,n,y,33% w/v,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,23,C,n,31.5,"hive, does not specifically state that the hive was on-site. Their description of how they caught the bees makes me think that this was a managed hive",y,y,unstated,"(1) Unsure of signficant figures for this application rate. (2) FLOWERS, KEPT IN WATER, DRY TIME, DIF EXSPOURE AND OBSERVATION TIMES. 8 clover flowers kept in water, with a cage put over it, forcing bees to forage in this ""mini-field"". Bees exposed for one hours, then removed from the cage, THEN observed for 24 h (3) The authors provide a concentration for the sucrose solution used to fed bees after they had been removed from their hive, but before they were exposed to pesticide residues. The authors then state that they fed ""the sucrose solution"" to the bees during the observation period. The wording they used led me to assume that the concentration of the post-treatment sucrose solution was the same as that of the pre-exposure solution. ",,,,8.5.19,8.7.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,10,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,8,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,24,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,17,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,4,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,1,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,18,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,10,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,18,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,16,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,1,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,4,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,35,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,19,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,44,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,32,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,4,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,3,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,14,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,9,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,35,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,11,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,3,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.014,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,2,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,23,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,18,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,25,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,20,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,8,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,8,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,37,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,22,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,48,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,35,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,6,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,10,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,76,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,46,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,84,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,48,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,18,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 20% SC,SC,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,12,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Bond,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,30,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Bond,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,19,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Bond,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,51,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Bond,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,41,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Bond,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,9,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Bond,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,10,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Nufilm,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,33,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Nufilm,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,23,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Nufilm,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,32,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Nufilm,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,35,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Nufilm,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,9,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Nufilm,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.11,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,9,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG ,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,85,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG ,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,57,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG ,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,83,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG ,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,56,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG ,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,18,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG ,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,9,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Sylgard,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,100,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Sylgard,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,30,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,100,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"managed hive, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Sylgard,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,80,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Sylgard,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,61,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae incubated and emerged in lab. ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Sylgard,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,NA,24,23,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of fipronil on adult female bees of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi",Mayer and Lunden 1999,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009,peer-reviewed journal article,Fipronil 80WG + Sylgard,WG + unstated,fipronil + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.22,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,n,NA,24,12,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites ,y,y,unstated,"Methods subsection about residue toxicity experiment states that the process of collecting and caging bees was the same as that described in the prior methods subsection (a subsection about a different experiment). The referenced subsection is where I obtained the temperature at which bees were kept. I am assuming temperature would be included in what Mayer meant when he said that the two experiments ""caged"" bees the same way.","This paper phrased its replications in that same, confusing way that I have seen before. The paper stated ""replicated four times per treatment and time interval."" I interpreted this as 4 cage replicates. The paper also states ""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered fipronil residues were collected from each of 12 sits in each treatmenta t 2 h and 8 h after application."" I recorded this as 12 plot replicates. I'm still not fully confident in what constitutes a plot replicate and why it is valuable",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,NEEMRAJ 0.15%,unstated,azadirachtin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,5 mL/L ,g ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,22.22,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,NEEMRAJ 0.15%,unstated,azadirachtin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,5 mL/L ,g ai/ha,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,18.52,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,NEEMRAJ 0.15%,unstated,azadirachtin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,5 mL/L ,g ai/ha,n,N/A,72,n,24,24,10.71,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,NEEMRAJ 0.15%,unstated,azadirachtin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,5 mL/L ,g ai/ha,n,N/A,120,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,NEEMRAJ 0.15%,unstated,azadirachtin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,5 mL/L ,g ai/ha,n,N/A,168,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,NEEMRAJ 0.15%,unstated,azadirachtin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,5 mL/L ,g ai/ha,n,N/A,216,n,24,24,0,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TATA TAFGOR 30% SC/EC,SC/EC,dimethoate,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,85.71,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.","In one table the product's formulation is reported as SC, in another it is reported as EC. ",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TATA TAFGOR 30% SC/EC,SC/EC,dimethoate,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g ai/ha,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,81.48,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.","In one table the product's formulation is reported as SC, in another it is reported as EC. ",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TATA TAFGOR 30% SC/EC,SC/EC,dimethoate,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g ai/ha,n,N/A,72,n,24,24,57.14,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.","In one table the product's formulation is reported as SC, in another it is reported as EC. ",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TATA TAFGOR 30% SC/EC,SC/EC,dimethoate,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g ai/ha,n,N/A,120,n,24,24,25,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.","In one table the product's formulation is reported as SC, in another it is reported as EC. ",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TATA TAFGOR 30% SC/EC,SC/EC,dimethoate,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g ai/ha,n,N/A,168,n,24,24,13.79,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.","In one table the product's formulation is reported as SC, in another it is reported as EC. ",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TATA TAFGOR 30% SC/EC,SC/EC,dimethoate,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g ai/ha,n,N/A,216,n,24,24,7.14,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.","In one table the product's formulation is reported as SC, in another it is reported as EC. ",,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,CYPER PLUS 10% EC,EC,cypermethrin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,65,g ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,82.14,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,CYPER PLUS 10% EC,EC,cypermethrin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,65,g ai/ha,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,77.78,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,CYPER PLUS 10% EC,EC,cypermethrin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,65,g ai/ha,n,N/A,72,n,24,24,75,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,CYPER PLUS 10% EC,EC,cypermethrin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,65,g ai/ha,n,N/A,120,n,24,24,50,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,CYPER PLUS 10% EC,EC,cypermethrin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,65,g ai/ha,n,N/A,168,n,24,24,31.03,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,CYPER PLUS 10% EC,EC,cypermethrin,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,65,g ai/ha,n,N/A,216,n,24,24,21.43,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DEVIGENT PLUS 5% SC,SC,fipronil,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,45,g ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,96.43,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DEVIGENT PLUS 5% SC,SC,fipronil,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,45,g ai/ha,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,88.89,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DEVIGENT PLUS 5% SC,SC,fipronil,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,45,g ai/ha,n,N/A,72,n,24,24,60.71,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DEVIGENT PLUS 5% SC,SC,fipronil,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,45,g ai/ha,n,N/A,120,n,24,24,57.14,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DEVIGENT PLUS 5% SC,SC,fipronil,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,45,g ai/ha,n,N/A,168,n,24,24,55.17,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,DEVIGENT PLUS 5% SC,SC,fipronil,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,45,g ai/ha,n,N/A,216,n,24,24,28.57,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TRISHUL 17.8% SL,SL,imidacloprid,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,20,g ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,89.29,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TRISHUL 17.8% SL,SL,imidacloprid,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,20,g ai/ha,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,85.19,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TRISHUL 17.8% SL,SL,imidacloprid,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,20,g ai/ha,n,N/A,72,n,24,24,71.43,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TRISHUL 17.8% SL,SL,imidacloprid,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,20,g ai/ha,n,N/A,120,n,24,24,50,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TRISHUL 17.8% SL,SL,imidacloprid,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,20,g ai/ha,n,N/A,168,n,24,24,44.83,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,TRISHUL 17.8% SL,SL,imidacloprid,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,20,g ai/ha,n,N/A,216,n,24,24,35.71,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,INDEX 14.5% SC,SC,indoxacarb,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,44,g ai/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,71.43,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,INDEX 14.5% SC,SC,indoxacarb,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,44,g ai/ha,n,N/A,24,n,24,24,66.67,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,INDEX 14.5% SC,SC,indoxacarb,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,44,g ai/ha,n,N/A,72,n,24,24,64.29,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,INDEX 14.5% SC,SC,indoxacarb,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,44,g ai/ha,n,N/A,120,n,24,24,21.43,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,INDEX 14.5% SC,SC,indoxacarb,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,44,g ai/ha,n,N/A,168,n,24,24,17.24,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Evaluation of persistence of insecticide toxicity in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.),Pashte and Patil 2017,none,peer-reviewed journal article,INDEX 14.5% SC,SC,indoxacarb,sunflower,none,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,unstated,N/A,flowers,1,live flowers in field,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,44,g ai/ha,n,N/A,216,n,24,24,10.71,unstated,unstated,N/A,"Sunflowers were still in field, and each group of bees was caged over one individual flower. The paper makes it clear that there are 3 cage replicates, but it did not seem to indicate if there were any ""plot replicates."" I am not sure if plot replicates would even apply to this study because, again, the cages were in the plots",3,y,y,unstated,sugar solution,unstated,N/A,20.325,C,y,"adult. ""Newly emerged workers with light yellow setae on the thorax were discarded""",on-site managed hives,y,y,unstated,"Cage put over the sunflower in the field (sunflower plants had not been picked, they were still in the soil). Residue was on the flower itself not on the leaf. Test took place outdoors. I do not think that there are real ""plot replicates"" because this test was conducted in a field -- I believe there are just cage replicates.",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,24,y,3,24,75,13.3,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,24,n,24,24,60,20,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,24,y,3,24,100,0,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,24,n,24,24,100,0,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,48,y,3,24,60,13.1,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,48,n,24,24,86.7,4.9,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,48,y,3,24,70,17.5,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,48,n,24,24,100,0,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,144,y,3,24,40,17.8,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,144,n,24,24,61.7,19.5,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,144,y,3,24,66.7,16.8,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,144,n,24,24,100,0,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,288,y,3,24,8.3,4.7,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,288,n,24,24,35,20.6,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,288,y,3,24,31.7,14.4,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,288,n,24,24,33.3,13.8,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,576,y,3,24,6.6,4.9,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,625 * 10^-6,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,576,n,24,24,0,0,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,576,y,3,24,0,0,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, observation",1 g bee candy provided when observation period began,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
Assessment of Toxicity of Fipronil and its Residues to Honey Bees,Keshlaf et al. 2013,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Regent 200 SC,SC,fipronil,transgenic Bt (Bollgard II Sicot 71BR) cotton,approximately,,,200,cm2,,,,,foliage,2,n,unchopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,125 * 10^-5,g product/whole cotton plant,n,2,576,n,24,24,0,0,unstated,6,"""Six replicate plants were used for each of the following treatments; Full recommended rate, Half of the recommended rate, and Control (water only)""",6,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,"y, both (no difference in durations)",1 g bee candy 3 h into exposure/observation period,unstated,N/A,n,7,"on-site hive, University of Western Sydney (UWS) apiary",unstated,N/A,unstated,"A frame of sealed worker brood was taken from the hive and incubated. Emerged bees were marked, put in a cage with bee candy, and reintroduced into their source hives. All marked bees were recollected when they turned 7 days old. Potted cotton grown in greenhouse, as opposed to in soil. Pesticides were allowed to dry for a set period of time, but residue times still appear to be from the time of initial application. Therefore, te way this paper brought up this""drying time"" did not result in ambiguous residue ages. Unusual food. Other experiments used Abbot's formula to correct for mortality, but it does not appear that the residue toxicity data was corrected for this mortality by this or any  method. No correction of mortality for the residue toxicity test was mentioned. Keshlaf et al 2013 cut leaves off a plant, and then cut those leaves into disks that would fit into their petri dishes. On 8/21/19 I decided that neither of those count as chopped foliage- the leaves aren't cut up into many pieces, they are just cut so that they fit in the dish. I do not think this impacts any of my earlier classifications of cut foliage. ",,,,8.6.19,8.15.19,8/21/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Sylgard,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Sylgard,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,4,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Sylgard,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,5,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Sylgard,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,2,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Sylgard,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,18,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Sylgard,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,10,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Bond,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Bond,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,0,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Bond,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,10,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Bond,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,4,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Bond,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,11,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + Bond,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,9,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + oil,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,1,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + oil,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,2,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,31.5,"3 colonies, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + oil,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,14,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + oil,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,3,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + oil,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,2,n,24,24,10,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"The effects of spinosad insecticide to adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata and Nomia melanderi (Hymenoptera: Apidae)",Mayer et al. 2001,none,peer-reviewed journal article,Spinosad 2 SC + oil,SC + unstated,spinosad + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,400,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,unstated,0.1,Kg AI/ha,n,N/A,8,n,24,24,11,unstated,,12,"""Four samples [i.e. 4 cage replicates] of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered spinosad residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application.""",,unstated,unstated,N/A,N/A,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,3,prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,No information on environmental conditions at alfalfa field site.,,,,8.7.19,8.7.19,8/20/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.011,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,7,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.011,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,12,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.017,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,15,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.017,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,14,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.022,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,17,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.022,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,13,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,35,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,16,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.034,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,85,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.034,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.011,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,27,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.011,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,4,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.017,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,38,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.017,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,5,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.022,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,35,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.022,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,7,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,55,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,23,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.034,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.034,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.011,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,14,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.011,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,28,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.017,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,15,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.017,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,25,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.022,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,33,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.022,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,33,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,87,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,85,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.034,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.034,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,100,unstated,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,39,5.3,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,6,3.5,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,33,6.1,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,17,3.6,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,90,5.8,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC,EC,cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,80,10.2,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bond,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,37,4.8,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bond,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,6,3.3,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bond,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,30,6.8,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bond,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,18,3.8,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bond,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,85,10.3,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bond,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,79,8.8,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Sylgard,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,27,4.2,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Sylgard,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,2,2.1,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Sylgard,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,30,7.4,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Sylgard,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,22,4.9,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Sylgard,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,82,9.4,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Sylgard,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,79,5.1,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + R-56,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,35,4.5,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + R-56,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,3,2.3,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + R-56,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,17,4.1,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + R-56,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,13,5.5,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + R-56,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,84,10.4,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + R-56,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,76,9.2,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + oil,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,40,6.9,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + oil,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,5,1.5,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + oil,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,16,3.5,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + oil,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,15,5.7,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + oil,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,84,9.2,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + oil,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,74,6.8,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bivert,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,47,6.4,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bivert,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,4,1.4,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,"colonies, I presume managed based on the description of how they were obtained, unclear if on-site",y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bivert,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,28,6.6,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bivert,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Nomia melanderi,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,19,7.1,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,17.5,collected from nesting sites,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bivert,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,2,no,24,24,68,5.7,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
"Field and laboratory tests on the effects of cyhalothrin on adults of Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata, and Nomia melanderi",Mayer et al. 1998,https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1998.11100952,peer-reviewed journal article,Cyhalothrin 1EC + Bivert,EC + unstated,cyhalothrin + adjuvant,alfalfa,about,,,500,cm2,,,,,foliage,unstated,n,unstated,Megachile rotundata,female,20,0.028,kg ai/ha,n,N/A,8,no,24,24,56,6.1,unstated,12,"""Four samples of alfalfa foliage with field-weathered cyhalothrin residues were collected from each of 12 sites in each treatment at 2 h and 8 h after application""",4,y,y,50%,sucrose solution,unstated,N/A,27.5,C,n,4.5,incubated prepupae emerged in lab,y,y,unstated,"(1) I interpreted this study as having 4 cage replicates, but the exact wording was somewhat confusing: ""Residue exposures were replicated four times per treatment and time intervalÉAdditionally, the residue bioassay was used to evaluate the bee hazard of cyhalothrin when tank-mixed with different adjuvants using four replications per treatment as described above."" (2) The methods section of this paper first describes the topical LD50 experiment, then the toxicity of residues experiment. In the toxicity of residues subsection, the paper states that ""adult bees were collected and caged as described previously [in the topical LD50 subsection]."" I assumed this meant that, in the toxicity of residues experiment, the bees were caged at the same temperature andn provided sucrose solution of the same concentration as in the topical LD50 experiment. I further assumed that, like the topical LD50 experiment, there was no difference in the durations of exposure to residues and observation of mortality.",Name of product is reported as Cyhalothrin 1E in the methods and as Cyhalothrin 1EC in the result tables,,,8.8.19,8.15.19,8/22/19
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,2,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,14,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,8,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,50,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,14,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,100,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,8,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,16,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,14,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Toxicity of YRC 2894 Treated Foliage to Honey Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,YRC 2894,SC,Thiacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,,,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,200,gm AI/ha,,,24,n,can't find,can't find,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,25,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,94,450,g AI/ha,,,8,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,92,450,g AI/ha,,,8,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,93,450,g AI/ha,,,8,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,101,450,g AI/ha,,,24,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,101,450,g AI/ha,,,24,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,101,450,g AI/ha,,,24,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,103,450,g AI/ha,,,48,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,104,450,g AI/ha,,,48,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,100,450,g AI/ha,,,48,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,93,450,g AI/ha,,,72,n,24,,98.9,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,93,450,g AI/ha,,,72,n,24,,94.6,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,99,450,g AI/ha,,,72,n,24,,58.6,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,93,450,g AI/ha,,,72,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,93,450,g AI/ha,,,72,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,99,450,g AI/ha,,,72,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,102,450,g AI/ha,,,96,n,24,,86.3,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,101,450,g AI/ha,,,96,n,24,,76.2,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,102,450,g AI/ha,,,96,n,24,,33.3,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,102,450,g AI/ha,,,96,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,101,450,g AI/ha,,,96,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,102,450,g AI/ha,,,96,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,94,450,g AI/ha,,,120,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,100,450,g AI/ha,,,120,n,24,,56,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,120,n,24,,76.5,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,100,450,g AI/ha,,,120,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,120,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,106,450,g AI/ha,,,144,n,24,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,102,450,g AI/ha,,,144,n,24,,70.6,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,144,n,24,,74.5,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,102,450,g AI/ha,,,144,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,144,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,97,450,g AI/ha,,,168,n,24,,11.3,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,95,450,g AI/ha,,,168,n,24,,44.2,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,93,450,g AI/ha,,,168,n,24,,21.5,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,97,450,g AI/ha,,,168,n,48,,88.7,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,95,450,g AI/ha,,,168,n,48,,96.8,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,93,450,g AI/ha,,,168,n,48,,100,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,192,n,24,,1,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,101,450,g AI/ha,,,192,n,24,,7.9,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,94,450,g AI/ha,,,192,n,24,,11.7,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,192,n,48,,29.6,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,101,450,g AI/ha,,,192,n,48,,57.4,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,94,450,g AI/ha,,,192,n,48,,44.7,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,216,n,24,,22.4,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,100,450,g AI/ha,,,216,n,24,,9,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,100,450,g AI/ha,,,216,n,24,,3,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,98,450,g AI/ha,,,216,n,48,,29.6,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,100,450,g AI/ha,,,216,n,48,,19,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Forced Contact Residual Toxicity of Microencapsulated Methyl Parathion 450 g/l CS to Honey-Bees,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,microencapsulated Methyl Parathion,CS,methyl parathion,alfalfa,,,,,,,,,,foliage and flowers,,N/A,unstated,Apis mellifera,worker,100,450,g AI/ha,,,216,n,48,,5,,,,,3,,y,unstated,thick honey,,,24.5,C,n,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,44,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,36,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,48,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,56,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,48,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,50,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,36,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,34,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,24,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,18,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,18,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,28,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,0,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,14,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,6,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,24,n,unstated,,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,2,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,18,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,24,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,2,n,unstated,,10,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,22,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,4,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,18,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,16,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,20,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
Deltamethrin/Honey Bees Toxicity of Residues on Foliage,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer study,Decis EC,EC,deltamethrin,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,500,cc,0.8,kg,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,50,0.02,lb AI/acre,,,8,n,unstated,,12,,,2,,3,,y,50:50:00,sugar syrup,,,24.5,C,n,24.5,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,24,n,24,,43.3,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,24,n,48,,78.3,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,24,n,72,,93.3,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,72,n,24,,10,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,72,n,48,,41.7,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,72,n,72,,76.7,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,168,n,24,,5,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,168,n,48,,28.3,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,168,n,72,,65,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,336,n,24,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,336,n,48,,28.3,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,336,n,72,,60,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,504,n,24,,10,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,504,n,48,,43.3,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,10% EC ethiprole,EC,ethiprole,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,200,g AI/ha,,,504,n,72,,73.3,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,24,n,24,,6.67,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,24,n,48,,51.7,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,24,n,72,,80,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,72,n,24,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,72,n,48,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,72,n,72,,6.67,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,168,n,24,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,168,n,48,,1.67,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,168,n,72,,12,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,336,n,24,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,336,n,48,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,336,n,72,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,504,n,24,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,504,n,48,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
"An Extended Laboratory Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Toxicity of Residues of EXP61685B (10% EC ethiprole) on foliage to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera",Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,dimethoate,unstated,dimethoate,alfalfa,,,,,,,,5,g,foliage,,N/A,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,10,300,g AI/ha,,,504,n,72,,0,,,,,,,y,,honey,,,25,C,n,10,,,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,3.4,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,24,,48,,62.7,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,24,,72,,86.2,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,168,,24,,3.3,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,168,,48,,46.7,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,168,,72,,88.3,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,336,,24,,0,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,336,,48,,0,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,336,,72,,10.7,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,504,,24,,0,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,504,,48,,0,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,504,,72,,5,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,672,,24,,0,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,672,,48,,5,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
Residual toxicity to the honeybee (Apis mellifera) of EXP61846A (Ethiprole 10% SC) applied as a foliar spray to tomato plants. An Extended Laboratory Study,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Ethiprole 10% SC,SC,ethiprole,tomato,,5.5,cm,,,,,30,g,foliage,,,,Apis mellifera,worker,10,333,g AI/ha,,,672,,72,,6.7,,,1,,6,,y,50:50:00,aqueous sucrose solution,,,25.4,C,,4,,y,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,0,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,0,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,0,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,0,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,12,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,16,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,0,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,0,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,0,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
BYI 02960 200 SL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,,SL,flupyradifurone,alfalfa,,,,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,205,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,4,,,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,25,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,30,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,5,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,30,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,13,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,30,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,0,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,60,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,5,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,60,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,16,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,60,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,1,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,100,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,9,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,100,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,16,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Tetraniliprole: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Tetraniliprole,SC,tetraniliprole,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,100,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,1,,,3,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,29,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,50,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,2,,<3,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,187,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,26,,32.2,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,74,,85.5,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,50,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,11,,<3,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,187,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,66,,32.2,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,83,,85.5,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,50,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,6,,<3,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,187,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,49,,32.2,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,84,,85.5,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,187,g AI/ha,,,48,,24,,3,,32.2,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,48,,24,,39,,85.5,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,72,,24,,55,,85.5,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG,WG,imidacloprid,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,96,,24,,13,,85.5,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,50,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,1,,<3,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,187,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,55,,16.1,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,3,,24,,85,,69.4,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,50,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,11,,<3,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,187,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,83,,16.1,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,8,,24,,98,,69.4,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,50,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,1,,<3,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,187,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,11,,16.1,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,24,,24,,73,,69.4,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,48,,24,,63,,69.4,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Imidacloprid 700 WG: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee,Unknown,Unkown,Bayer Study,Imidacloprid 700 WG + Nimbus,WG,imidacloprid + adjuvant,alfalfa,approximately,2.5,cm,,,,,15,g,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,25,560,g AI/ha,,,72,,24,,22,,69.4,,,6,,,50:50:00,sucrose solution,,,30.5,C,,young,,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Trigard 75WP,WP,cyromazine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,2,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Trigard 75WP,WP,cyromazine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Trigard 75WP,WP,cyromazine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,2,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,0,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,1,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,0,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,2,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,2,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,2,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,2,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Prochloraz 40EC,EC,prochloraz,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,2,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,0,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Standak 2.67F,F,aldoxycarb,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,3,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,35,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Standak 2.67F,F,aldoxycarb,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,3,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,30,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Standak 2.67F,F,aldoxycarb,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,3,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,18,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,41,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,25,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,22,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC + Bond,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2 + 8 oz,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,37,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC + Bond,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2 + 8 oz,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,7,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC + Bond,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2 + 8 oz,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,9,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC + Biofilm,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2 + 2 oz,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,44,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC + Biofilm,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2 + 2 oz,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,14,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 2.4EC + Biofilm,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.2 + 2 oz,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,18,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Nudrin 1.8EC,EC,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,22,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Nudrin 1.8EC,EC,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,9,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Nudrin 1.8EC,EC,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,6,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,66,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,61,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,60,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EC,EC,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,2,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EC,EC,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,1,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,36,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,34,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EC,EC,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,15,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22EC,EC,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,18,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,60,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,69,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,63,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Baythroid 2E,E,cyfluthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Diazinon 4EC,EC,diazinon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,unstated,,,,2,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,unstated,,,,8,no,,24,50,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,87.5,unstated,,,,24,no,,24,51,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,unstated,,,,2,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1985,Mayer et al. 1985,unstated,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,No,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,17.5,unstated,,,,8,no,,24,100,,,unstated,,4,y,y,50:50,sugar syrup,n,,23.9,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,79,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,25,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,33,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,7,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,52,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,39,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,69,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,43,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,69,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,83,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,30,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,79,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,Lannate 90% WP,WP,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,48,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,15,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,53,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,18,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% WP,WP,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,98,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,97,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,85,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,zeta-cypermethrin,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,82,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,87,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Parathion 4 lb EC,EC,methyl parathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,61,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,13,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,36,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,22,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,8,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,Dylox 80% SP,SP,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,61,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,31,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,35,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,58,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,20,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,38,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,24,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,41,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,6.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,28,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-methyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-methyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-methyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,38,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-methyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-methyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-methyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-methyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,11,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-ethyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-ethyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,pirimiphos-methyl,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-ethyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-ethyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,25,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-ethyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-ethyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pirimiphos-ethyl 4.34 lb EC,EC,pirimiphos-ethyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,83,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,26,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,53,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3 lb EC,EC,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,31,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3% D,D,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3% D,D,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,60,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3% D,D,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Phosvel 3% D,D,leptophos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,6,n,48,48,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,81,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1971",Johansen and Eves,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sevin 80% WP,WP,zeta-cypermethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,48,48,61,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,15,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,23,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,12,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,30,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,15,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,25,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,33,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.23,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.23,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.23,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,13,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.23,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.23,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.23,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,8,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.45,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.45,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.45,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.45,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.45,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90% SP,SP,Formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.45,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Omite 6lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Omite 6lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Omite 6lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,2.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,11,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Omite 6lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,2.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Comite 6.75 lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2.1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Comite 6.75 lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,8,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Comite 6.75 lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,2.1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Comite 6.75 lb EC,EC,propargite,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,2.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,dimethoate,Apis mellifera,,75,0.125,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.125,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.125,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.125,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,30,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,13,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,,,19,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Baytex 93% LC,ULV,fenthion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.8,oz ai/A,1.8,oz ai/A,3,n,,,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Baytex 93% LC,ULV,fenthion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.8,oz ai/A,,,8,n,,,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Baytex 93% LC,ULV,fenthion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.8,oz ai/A,,,3,n,,,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Baytex 93% LC,ULV,fenthion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.8,oz ai/A,,,8,n,,,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,Apis mellifera,,75,10,oz ai/A,1.8,oz ai/A,3,n,,,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,10,oz ai/A,,,8,n,,,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,10,oz ai/A,,,3,n,,,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,10,oz ai/A,,,8,n,,,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,Apis mellifera,,75,10,oz ai/A,1.8,oz ai/A,24,n,,,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,10,oz ai/A,,,72,n,,,44,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,10,oz ai/A,,,24,n,,,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,10,oz ai/A,,,72,n,,,95,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,malathion,Apis mellifera,,75,10,oz ai/A,1.8,oz ai/A,120,n,,,32,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,10,oz ai/A,,,168,n,,,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,26,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,10,oz ai/A,,,120,n,,,86,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1972",Johansen and Baird,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 95% tech. ,ULV,malathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,10,oz ai/A,,,168,n,,,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar/honey,,,31,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,30,30,41,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,30,30,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,30,30,49,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80% SP,SP,trichlorfon,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,30,30,9,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,25,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,87,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,38,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,22,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,13,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,41,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,30,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,91,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,84,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,67,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.25,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,11,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.25,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,30,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,11,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,64,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,44,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,29,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.25,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.25,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,16,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,62,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,33,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,80,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,68,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,23,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,43,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 1.8 lb LS,LS,methomyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,25,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,13,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,44,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,9,n,24,24,30,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 lb LS,LS,oxamyl,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,51,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,36,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,8,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,56,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,20,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,64,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,13,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,25,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,49,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,18,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,51,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,20,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,46,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,20,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Di-Syston 6 lb EC,EC,disulfoton,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,7,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,43,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,13,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dursban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,36,36,22,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,36,36,9,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,36,36,8,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,36,36,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,36,36,43,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,35,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,36,36,11,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,36,36,19,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92% SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,36,36,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 1 lb EC,EC,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 1 lb EC,EC,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 1 lb EC,EC,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 1 lb EC,EC,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 50% WP,WP,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 50% WP,WP,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 50% WP,WP,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Imidan 50% WP,WP,phosmet,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb EC,EC,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb EC,EC,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb EC,EC,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,59,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb EC,EC,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb Enc. ,Enc.,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb Enc. ,Enc.,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,12,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb Enc. ,Enc.,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dyfonate 4 lb Enc. ,Enc.,fonofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,45,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Kelthane MF 4 lb EC,EC,dicofol,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1973",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Kelthane MF 4 lb EC,EC,dicofol,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,96,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,168,n,24,24,85,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,264,n,24,24,43,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,336,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,48,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,74,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,168,n,24,24,49,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,240,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,288,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,48,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,168,n,24,24,83,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,240,n,24,24,54,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,San 197 EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,288,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,168,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,216,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,336,n,24,24,65,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,168,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,216,n,24,24,80,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Furadan 4 lb F,F,carbofuran,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,336,n,24,24,39,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,75,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,27,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,35,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,37,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Supracide 2 lb EC,EC,methidathion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,12,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,90,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,75,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,22,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,85,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,76,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,90,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,82,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cygon 2.67 lb EC,EC,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,15,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,58,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,98,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,61,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,94,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,40,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,75,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,90,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,74,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SAN 197 4.28 lb EC,EC,imidacloprid,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,79,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,oz ai/A,oz ai/A,oz ai/A,8,n,24,24,24,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,64,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,88,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,63,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,25,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,83,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,59,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,2,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,90,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,2,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,78,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,86,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,44,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,65,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP557 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA 15324 4 lb EC,EC,profenofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai.A,2,lb ai.A,2,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA 15324 4 lb EC,EC,profenofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,38,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA 15324 4 lb EC,EC,profenofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,97,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA 15324 4 lb EC,EC,profenofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,52,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA 15324 4 lb EC,EC,profenofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA 15324 4 lb EC,EC,profenofos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,98,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,86,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,79,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,94,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,83,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,85,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.4,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.4,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.4,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.4,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.4,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 41706 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenpropathrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.4,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,57,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,82,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,39,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.1,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,64,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,18,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.4,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.4,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,97,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.4,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.4,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.4,lb ai.A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,SD 43775 2.4 lb EC,EC,fenvalerate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.4,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,144,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai.A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai.A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai.A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,CGA - 18809 80% WP,WP,azamethiphos,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,lb ai.A,,,144,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb EC,EC,fenitrothion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb EC,EC,fenitrothion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,61,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb EC,EC,fenitrothion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai.A,,,24,n,24,24,12,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb EC,EC,fenitrothion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai.A,,,3,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb EC,EC,fenitrothion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai.A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb EC,EC,fenitrothion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai.A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1975",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb EC,EC,fenitrothion,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai.A,,,72,n,24,24,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,144,n,24,24,80,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,216,n,24,24,45,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,288,n,24,24,38,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,360,n,24,24,15,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,72,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,144,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,216,n,48,48,90,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,288,n,48,48,50,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,10,lb ai/A,,,360,n,48,48,28,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,144,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,216,n,24,24,73,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,288,n,24,24,50,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,360,n,24,24,28,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,72,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,144,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,216,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,288,n,48,48,85,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,20,lb ai/A,,,360,n,48,48,63,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,144,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,216,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,288,n,24,24,73,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,360,n,24,24,30,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,72,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,144,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,216,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,288,n,48,48,78,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dimethoate 5% G,G,dimethoate,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,40,lb ai/A,,,360,n,48,48,55,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,oz ai/A,oz ai/A,oz ai/A,2,n,24,24,90,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,46,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,0.5,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,51,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,0.5,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,29,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,0.5,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,15,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,2,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,92,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,2,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,30,2,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,2,oz ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,86,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1976",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 33297 3.2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,22.5,2,oz ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,76,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,30,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,65,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,48,48,12,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,48,48,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,168,n,48,48,8,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,99,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,48,48,20,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,48,48,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion ,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,168,n,48,48,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,89,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,76,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,73,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,36,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,12,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,79,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,16,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,98,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,86,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,51,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,43,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,87,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,61,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,97,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,74,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,56,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 2 lb EC,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,19,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,7,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,7,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,8,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,38,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,16,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,10,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,7,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,7,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,7,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,78,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,49,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile pacifica,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,12,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,48,48,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,48,48,4,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1977",Johansen et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 50% WP,WP,malonoben,aflafla,,,,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,75,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,48,48,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar syrup,,,25,C,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,68,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,47,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,8,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,47,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,15,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,83,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,50,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,84,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,38,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,12,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,68,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Sumithion 8 lb/gal EC,EC,Fenitrothion,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,32,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,98,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,63,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,88,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,81,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,67,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,36,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,94,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,88,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,44,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,74,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,42,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% WP,WP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,61,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,36,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,17,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,81,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,55,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,66,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,28,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,14,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,11,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,12,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,22,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,8,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,7,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,47,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,30,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malonoben 2 lb/gal EC,EC,malonoben,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,14,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,65,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,98,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,87,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,35,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,87,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,43,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 lb/gal EC,EC,naled,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Nomia melanderi,,15,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,,,,,,,85 - 88,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 15.6% LS,LS,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 15.6% LS,LS,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,63,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 15.6% SP,SP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,4,n,24,24,96,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1978",Johansen et al. 1978,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 15.6% SP,SP,acephate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,58,,,,,4,,,,,,,75 - 80,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,48,n,,24,80,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,15,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,48,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,79,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,48,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,98,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,1,lb ai/A,,,48,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,1,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,94,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,17.5,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,82,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,81,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,73,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,144,n,,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,96,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,144,n,,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,168,n,,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,99,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,71,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,144,n,,24,16,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,168,n,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,96,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,,24,99,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,144,n,,24,45,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4 lb EC,EC,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,168,n,,24,23,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,,24,60,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,18,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 EC,EC,naled,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,,24,89,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,94,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,40,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,,24,71,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,36,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1983,Johansen et al.,none,not peer reviewed paper,Orthene 75% SP,SP,acephate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,,24,28,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50%,sugar syrup,,,30,c,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,31,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,12,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,72,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,57,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,32,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,13,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,84,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,64,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.2,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,28,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,10,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,7,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,29,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,21,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EW,EW,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spure 2 lb/gal EC,EC,colpyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,3,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,9,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,4,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,7,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,3,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.25,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,8,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,NC 21314 4 lb/gal F,F,clofentezine,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,85,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,45,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,97,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,72,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,29,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ectiban 25% WP,WP,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.01,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,74,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.01,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,53,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.01,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,42,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.01,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,18,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.02,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,86,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.02,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,98,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.02,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,83,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.02,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,34,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.01,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.01,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,81,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.01,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,60,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.01,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,30,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.02,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.02,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.02,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,PP 321 1 lb/gal EC,EC,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.02,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,93,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,74,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,32,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.025,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.025,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,89,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,51,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,22,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.025,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,95,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.025,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,57,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.05,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,68,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,FMC 54800 2 lb/gal EC,EC,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,91,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,64,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,30,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,69,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,31,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1984,Johansen et al. 1984,none,not peer reviewed paper,Methyl Parathion 4 lb/gal EC,EC,methyl parathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,80,1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,70,,,,,4,y,y,50/50,sugar-syrup,,,29,C,n,,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,48,n,24,24,97,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,97,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,91,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,168,n,24,24,91,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.2,lb ai/A,,,48,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.2,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,100,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.2,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pounce 3.2lb/gal,EC,permethrin,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.2,lb ai/A,,,168,n,24,24,99,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,ZR 3210 2E,E,fluvalinate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,ZR 3210 2E,E,fluvalinate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,ZR 3210 2E,E,fluvalinate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,2,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,ZR 3210 2E,E,fluvalinate,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.1,lb ai/A,,,48,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,14,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.5,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,3,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.5,lb ai/A,,,48,n,24,24,6,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.5,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,5,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,0.5,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,1.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,52,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,1.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,27,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,1.2,lb ai/A,,,24,n,24,24,41,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,1.2,lb ai/A,,,48,n,24,24,33,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,1.2,lb ai/A,,,72,n,24,24,52,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1979",Kious et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 500,F,thiodicarb,aflafla,,1.5,inch,,,,,,,,foliage,n,chopped,Apis mellifera,,90,1.2,lb ai/A,,,120,n,24,24,1,,,,,4,y,y,,sugar water,,,24,C,,,brood frames,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,Secure 72WDG,WDG,fluazinam,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.135,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,Secure 72WDG,WDG,fluazinam,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.135,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,5,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,Secure 72WDG,WDG,fluazinam,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,30,0.135,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,Secure 72WDG,WDG,fluazinam,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,30,0.135,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,Steward SC,SC,indoxacarb,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,11.3,oz ai/A,,,2,,24,24,20,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,Steward SC,SC,indoxacarb,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,11.3,oz ai/A,,,8,,24,24,23,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,1.76,oz ai/A,,,2,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,1.76,oz ai/A,,,8,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,1.76,oz ai/A,,,2,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,1.76,oz ai/A,,,8,,24,24,54,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.24,oz ai/A,,,2,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.24,oz ai/A,,,8,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.24,oz ai/A,,,2,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.24,oz ai/A,,,8,,24,24,77,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.72,oz ai/A,,,2,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.72,oz ai/A,,,8,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.72,oz ai/A,,,2,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 2001,Mayer,none,not peer reviewed paper,F0570 0.8EW,EW,zeta-cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,2.72,oz ai/A,,,8,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,94,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,11,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,48,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,72,,,24,15,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,48,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 EC,EC,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,72,,,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,11,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,48,,,24,81,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,72,,,24,8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,48,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 WP,WP,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,72,,,24,22,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,13,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,48,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,72,,,24,24,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,48,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lindane 20 FLO,FLO,lindane,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,72,,,24,85,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80 SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,73,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80 SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,85,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dylox 80 SP,SP,trichlorfon,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5 EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5 EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Malathion 5 EC,EC,malathion,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Meta-systox R,R,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,5,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Meta-systox R,R,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Meta-systox R,R,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Swat 8 E,E,puperonyl butoxide,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Swat 8 E,E,puperonyl butoxide,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Swat 8 E,E,puperonyl butoxide,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,48,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92 SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,48,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92 SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,20,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Carzol 92 SP,SP,formetanate hydrochloride,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,9,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 80 DF,DF,thiodicarb,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,89,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 80 DF,DF,thiodicarb,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,88,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Larvin 80 DF,DF,thiodicarb,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,21,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 EC,EC,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 EC,EC,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,96,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Vydate 2 EC,EC,oxamyl,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,67,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Capture 2 E,E,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.05,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,87,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Capture 2 E,E,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.05,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Capture 2 E,E,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.05,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,70,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cymbush 3 E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. 1988,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cymbush 3 E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,3.5,inch,,,502,cc,,,foliage,6,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,6,y,y,50:52,sucrose and water,n,,26,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cymbush 3 E,E,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Karate 1 E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.03,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,65,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Karate 1 E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.03,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Karate 1 E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.03,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,89,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,40,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,17,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,33,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1986,Mayer et al. 1986,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1.5,inch,,,500,cc,,,foliage,4,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,unstated,,24,,,24,11,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,y,50:50,sucrose and water,n,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,13,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,22,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,27,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,33,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 3.2 EC,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.2,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,92,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Pydrin 3.2 EC,EC,fenvalerate,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.2,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,63,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Karate 1 E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.03,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Karate 1 E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23,0.03,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,2,,,24,28,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Bee Research Investigations 1987,Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Spur 22 EW,EW,clopyralid,alfalfa,about,2.5,inch,,,501,cc,,,foliage,5,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23,0.1,lb ai/A,unstated,,8,,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,5,y,y,50:51,sucrose and water,n,,25,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,11,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,5,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,RH-7988 4E,E,tiazamate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90 WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,71,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90 WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,89,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90 WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,87,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90 WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,53,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90 WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,84,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90 WP,WP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.9,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,80,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.75,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,0.75,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.75,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.75,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.75,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,67.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,12,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,5,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,36,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Metasystox-R 25 EC,EC,oxydemeton-methyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,21,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 4 EC,EC,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.125,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,93,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Ambush 4 EC,EC,permethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.125,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,89,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cymbush 3 EC,EC,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.06,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,88,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Cymbush 3 EC,EC,cypermethrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.06,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,86,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,75,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.5,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,32,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.75,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,89,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.75,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,54,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,93,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Thiodan 50 WP,WP,endosulfan,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,69,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Danitol 2.4 EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,67.5,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,52,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Danitol 2.4 EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,67.5,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,29,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Danitol 2.4 EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,67.5,0.4,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,74,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Danitol 2.4 EC,EC,fenpropathrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,67.5,0.4,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,52,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 E,E,naled,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,67.5,1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
"Bee Research Investigations, 1987",Mayer et al. 1987,none,not peer reviewed paper,Dibrom 8 E,E,naled,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,67.5,1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,50/50,sucrose and water,,,24,C,n,unstated,top supers of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,5,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.0125,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,10,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.0375,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.0375,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,10,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.0375,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.0375,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.0375,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,12,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,23.5,0.0375,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,29,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,50,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,66,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.075,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.075,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.075,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,65,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.075,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,93,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,95,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana XL 0.66 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,80,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,58,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.075,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.075,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.075,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,69,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.075,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,81,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,24,24,86,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1988,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Asana 1.9 EC,EC,esfenvalerate,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,24,24,92,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Andalin 2EC,EC,flucycloxuran,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.125,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Andalin 2EC,EC,flucycloxuran,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.125,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,15,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Andalin 2EC,EC,flucycloxuran,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Andalin 2EC,EC,flucycloxuran,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.25,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,10,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.012,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.012,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.012,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.012,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,10,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,18,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,30,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,22,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,43,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.2,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,47,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,EXP 60434A 80WG,WG,fipronil,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.2,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,69,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lock-On 1.6 EC,EC,chlorypyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lock-On 1.6 EC,EC,chlorypyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lock-On 1.6 EC,EC,chlorypyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lock-On 1.6 EC,EC,chlorypyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lock-On 1.6 EC,EC,chlorypyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lock-On 1.6 EC,EC,chlorypyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,20,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,13,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,18,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.025,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,12,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.025,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,13,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,19,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,9,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,15,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,20,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,28,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,16,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,23.5,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,11,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,,,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1991,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,NTN 33893 240FS,FS,imidacloprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500 cm,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,,,24,19,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Capture 2E,E,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.032,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,74,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Capture 2E,E,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.032,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,16,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Capture 2E,E,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.032,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,70,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Capture 2E,E,bifenthrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.032,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,24,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Warrior 1E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.02,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,48,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Warrior 1E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.02,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,14,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Warrior 1E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.02,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,46,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Warrior 1E,E,lambda-cyhalothrin,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.02,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,17,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90WSP,WSP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.45,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90WSP,WSP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.45,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90WSP,WSP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.45,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lannate 90WSP,WSP,methomyl,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,0.45,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,3,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,1,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,1,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,1,lb ai/A,,,12,n,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1996,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Lorsban 4E,E,chlorpyrifos,alfalfa,about,1,inch,500,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,35,1,lb ai/A,,,20,n,24,24,100,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,lids of colonies,,y,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,30,5.7,oz/acre,,,2,n,,24,1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,30,5.7,oz/acre,,,8,n,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,25,5.7,oz/acre,,,2,n,,24,36,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,25,5.7,oz/acre,,,8,n,,24,15,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,20,5.7,oz/acre,,,2,n,,24,20,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,20,5.7,oz/acre,,,8,n,,24,8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,30,8,oz/acre,,,2,n,,24,10,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker,30,8,oz/acre,,,8,n,,24,4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,25,8,oz/acre,,,2,n,,24,37,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,25,8,oz/acre,,,8,n,,24,24,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,20,8,oz/acre,,,2,n,,24,18,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Arbor 35WP,WP,oxytetracycline,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,20,8,oz/acre,,,8,n,,24,9,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Trigard 75WP,WP,cyromazine,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,25,0.33,lb ai/A,,,2,n,,24,91,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Trigard 75WP,WP,cyromazine,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,worker,25,0.33,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,83,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Trigard 75WP,WP,cyromazine,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,20,0.33,lb ai/A,,,2,n,,24,78,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations,Mayer et al. 1997,none,not peer reviewed paper,Trigard 75WP,WP,cyromazine,alfalfa,about,1,inch,,,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,worker,20,0.33,lb ai/A,,,8,n,,24,64,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,0,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0.8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,4.2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,6.8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.05,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.05,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,10.8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.075,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2.6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.075,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,1.7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.075,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,5.8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.075,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4.5,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.075,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.075,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,6.9,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,0.8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,2.6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,9.4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,0.1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.1,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,17.1,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.1,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,15.8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.15,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,1.7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.15,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,5.8,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.15,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,9.6,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.15,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,11.7,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.15,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,28.4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.15,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,31,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.3,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,2.5,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Apis mellifera,worker ,30,0.3,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,4.2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.3,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,10.2,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Megachile rotundata,,25,0.3,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,15.9,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.3,lb ai/A,,,2,n,24,24,23,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Investigations 1999,Mayer et al. ,none,not peer reviewed paper,Assail 70WP,WP,acetamiprid,alfalfa,about,1,inch,400,cm,,,,,foliage,,,chopped,Nomia melanderi,,20,0.3,lb ai/A,,,8,n,24,24,66.4,,,unstated,N/A,4,y,,1 to 1,syrup,,,24,C,n,unstated,top frames of colonies,,,,,,,,,,