Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps

2019 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 1722

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typereview

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps Vanbergen AJ, Potts SG, Vian A, Malkemper EP, Young J, Tscheulin T. Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Aug 7;695:133833. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133833. Abstract Worldwide urbanisation and use of mobile and wireless technologies (5G, Internet of Things) is leading to the proliferation of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and campaigning voices continue to call for the risk to human health and wildlife to be recognised. Pollinators provide many benefits to nature and humankind, but face multiple anthropogenic threats. Here, we assess whether artificial light at night (ALAN) and anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (AREMR), such as used in wireless technologies (4G, 5G) or emitted from power lines, represent an additional and growing threat to pollinators. A lack of high quality scientific studies means that knowledge of the risk to pollinators from anthropogenic EMR is either inconclusive, unresolved, or only partly established. A handful of studies provide evidence that ALAN can alter pollinator communities, pollination and fruit set. Laboratory experiments provide some, albeit variable, evidence that the honey bee Apis mellifera and other invertebrates can detect EMR, potentially using it for orientation or navigation, but they do not provide evidence that AREMR affects insect behaviour in ecosystems. Scientifically robust evidence of AREMR impacts on abundance or diversity of pollinators (or other invertebrates) are limited to a single study reporting positive and negative effects depending on the pollinator group and geographical location. Therefore, whether anthropogenic EMR (ALAN or AREMR) poses a significant threat to insect pollinators and the benefits they provide to ecosystems and humanity remains to be established. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionmixed

PopulationPollinators (including honey bee Apis mellifera and other invertebrates)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The review concludes that due to a lack of high-quality studies, risks to pollinators from anthropogenic EMR (including ALAN and anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR) are inconclusive, unresolved, or only partly established. Some studies suggest ALAN can alter pollinator communities, pollination, and fruit set, while laboratory experiments show variable evidence that honey bees and other invertebrates can detect EMR but do not provide evidence that anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR affects insect behaviour in ecosystems. Evidence on impacts of anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR on pollinator abundance/diversity is described as limited to a single study with both positive and negative effects depending on pollinator group and location.

Outcomes measured

Pollinator community alteration
Pollination
Fruit set
Detection of EMR (orientation/navigation)
Insect behaviour in ecosystems
Pollinator abundance
Pollinator diversity

Limitations

Lack of high-quality scientific studies
Evidence for anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR impacts on abundance/diversity limited to a single study
Laboratory evidence of EMR detection is variable and does not demonstrate ecosystem-level behavioural effects

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile and wireless technologies (4G, 5G, Internet of Things), power lines; artificial light at night (ALAN)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Pollinators (including honey bee Apis mellifera and other invertebrates)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Pollinator community alteration",
    "Pollination",
    "Fruit set",
    "Detection of EMR (orientation/navigation)",
    "Insect behaviour in ecosystems",
    "Pollinator abundance",
    "Pollinator diversity"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The review concludes that due to a lack of high-quality studies, risks to pollinators from anthropogenic EMR (including ALAN and anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR) are inconclusive, unresolved, or only partly established. Some studies suggest ALAN can alter pollinator communities, pollination, and fruit set, while laboratory experiments show variable evidence that honey bees and other invertebrates can detect EMR but do not provide evidence that anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR affects insect behaviour in ecosystems. Evidence on impacts of anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR on pollinator abundance/diversity is described as limited to a single study with both positive and negative effects depending on pollinator group and location.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Lack of high-quality scientific studies",
    "Evidence for anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR impacts on abundance/diversity limited to a single study",
    "Laboratory evidence of EMR detection is variable and does not demonstrate ecosystem-level behavioural effects"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pollinators",
    "honey bee",
    "Apis mellifera",
    "invertebrates",
    "anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation",
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation",
    "wireless technologies",
    "4G",
    "5G",
    "Internet of Things",
    "power lines",
    "artificial light at night",
    "ALAN",
    "abundance",
    "diversity",
    "orientation",
    "navigation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Discusses proliferation of 4G/5G and wireless technologies as sources of anthropogenic radiofrequency EMR and highlights evidence gaps."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133833
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library