Weak anthropogenic electric fields affect honeybee foraging

Cell Press · 2025 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 2563

Study snapshot

PublicationCell Press · 2025

Study typeanimal

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Category: Ecology Tags: electromagnetic fields, honeybees, pollination, electric pollution, foraging behavior, AC fields, DC fields DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112550 URL: cell.com Overview Aerial electroreception, or the detection of airborne electric fields (E-fields), is a recently recognized sensory system in arthropods such as bees. Bees utilize floral E-fields as foraging cues, but the potential impact of anthropogenic (human-made) E-fields on these critical interactions has been largely unexplored. Findings - 🌼 Weak anthropogenic-like electric fields reduce honeybee floral landing rates. - ⚡ Both alternating current (AC) and positive direct current (DC) fields deter honeybee landings—with reductions of 71% and 53%, respectively. - ➖ Negative DC fields show no statistically significant effect on honeybee landing behavior. - 🏞️ Experimentally measured electric fields near high-voltage power lines match those that affected bees, extending across tens of meters at foraging-relevant heights. Conclusion These findings reveal an important link between electric pollution and the potential disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. The alteration of bee foraging by anthropogenic E-fields poses risks to pollination efficiency — threatening agriculture and biodiversity. The study urgently calls for more research on the ecological impacts of electric pollution.

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 typeanimal

Effect directionmixed

PopulationHoneybees

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Weak anthropogenic-like electric fields reduced honeybee floral landing rates. Both AC and positive DC fields deterred landings (reported reductions 71% and 53%, respectively), while negative DC fields showed no statistically significant effect. Experimentally measured electric fields near high-voltage power lines matched those that affected bees and extended across tens of meters at foraging-relevant heights.

Outcomes measured

floral landing rates
landing/foraging behavior
plant-pollinator interactions (pollination efficiency; inferred as potential impact)

Limitations

Sample size not reported in provided abstract/metadata
Exposure metrics (field strength values, exact frequencies for AC, and exposure duration) not provided in the provided abstract/metadata
Details on experimental design, controls, and statistical methods not provided in the provided abstract/metadata

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "high-voltage power lines (anthropogenic electric fields)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Honeybees",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "floral landing rates",
    "landing/foraging behavior",
    "plant-pollinator interactions (pollination efficiency; inferred as potential impact)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Weak anthropogenic-like electric fields reduced honeybee floral landing rates. Both AC and positive DC fields deterred landings (reported reductions 71% and 53%, respectively), while negative DC fields showed no statistically significant effect. Experimentally measured electric fields near high-voltage power lines matched those that affected bees and extended across tens of meters at foraging-relevant heights.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in provided abstract/metadata",
    "Exposure metrics (field strength values, exact frequencies for AC, and exposure duration) not provided in the provided abstract/metadata",
    "Details on experimental design, controls, and statistical methods not provided in the provided abstract/metadata"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electric fields",
    "anthropogenic electric fields",
    "electric pollution",
    "honeybees",
    "foraging behavior",
    "floral landing",
    "AC fields",
    "DC fields",
    "power lines",
    "pollination"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Mentions high-voltage power lines as a real-world source of electric fields; relevance is environmental/near-infrastructure rather than occupational, so low weight."
    }
  ]
}

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.isci.2025.112550
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library