# ECO-004 — Homing ability of exposed honey bees

Why this matters
Finding the way home is essential to a foraging bee. After prolonged exposure to a continuously transmitting test signal, fewer bees returned successfully. This gives environmental assessment a functional endpoint beyond brood development or overall survival, which were not significantly changed. It does not establish colony collapse or effects in every Wi-Fi setting.

Id: ECO-004

Author: Treder et al.

Full Authors: Manuel Treder; Marcus Müller; Larissa Fellner; Kirsten Traynor; Peter Rosenkranz

Year: 2023

Title: Defined exposure of honey bee colonies to simulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF): Negative effects on the homing ability, but not on brood development or longevity

Journal: the science of the total environment

Citation: Treder M,Müller M,Fellner L,Traynor K,Rosenkranz P. Defined exposure of honey bee colonies to simulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields(RF-EMF): Negative effects on the homing ability,but not on brood development or longevity. Science of the Total Environment.2023;896:165211. DOI10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165211.

Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165211

Pmid: 37391156

Topic: Environmental effects

Verification Group: Original text reviewed

Record Role: Original text reviewed

Featured: True

Exposure: Simultaneous 2.450/5.805 GHz IEEE802.11 a OFDM packets,100% duty,continuous 12 weeks in 2020/14 weeks in 2021; homing after~7 weeks plus 40 min outside hives. EIRP177.83/10 mW per side; colonies 2 m from emitter; controls>100-fold lower. No bee SAR.

Design: Hohenheim field experiments 2020/2021;16 colonies randomly split 8/8. Long-term homing:4 hives/group,8 paired trials,~160 bees. Short-term:9 additional colonies,11 trials,~200 bees. GLMM includes hive/trial random factors.

Finding: Long-term return 78.6% exposed versus 95.2% control, GLMM P=.0064; return time nonsignificant. Short-term 40 min return 90.0% versus 86.6%, P=.4696. Brood development and overall 28-day survival were not significantly different (survival Log-Rank P=.102). A partial day 11-29 foraging-age-window survival analysis differed (Wilcoxon P=.042; exposed n=280, control n=217).

Boundary: Fitness-related field endpoint with engineered signal; 100% duty is not all typical Wi-Fi. Exposure geometry confounded with location; observer blinding unestablished; independent replication absent. The partial survival-window result is exploratory and does not establish a shortened overall lifespan. No inference of colony collapse, human risk or cellular 5G effects.

Related: Hohenheim/KIT programme; different protocol from Odemer 2019. Shared network is not independent laboratory replication.

Protection Question: Could prolonged exposure impair navigation under field-relevant conditions? Reduced homing is functionally important, but site confounding, absent independent replication and unchanged overall survival limit an ecological risk conclusion.

Access: Original nine-page KIT repository PDF reviewed; methods,Tables 1-3,results and disclosures checked; upgraded from retrieval lead.

Locator: Sections 2.1-2.6; Tables 1-3; Sections 3.2-3.3; Figures 6-7; Funding/Declaration.

Notice: Primary PubMed linked-notice record checked 20 Oct 2026; no correction, concern or retraction linked at check. This is not an exhaustive publisher-history certification.

Funding: Ministerium für Ernährung,Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz Baden-Württemberg.

Conflicts: Authors declare no known competing financial interests or personal relationships.

Source Url: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165211

Retrieval Links: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165211 | https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000161328/151145413 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37391156/

Verification Date: 2026-10-20