Can pesticide acute toxicity for bumblebees be derived from honeybee LD50 values?

contribution to session II Bumblebees and other bee specie

Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products - Chapter 10: Honeybees – Proposed scheme

contribution to session I Regulatory issue

Guidance for the assessment of risks to bees from the use of plant protection products applied as seed coating and soil applications – conclusions of the ICPBR dedicated working group

contribution to session IRegulatory issuesBackground: Soil or seed applied plant protection products (PPPs) aim at bringing the amount of active substance involved to the only parts of the plant that have to be protected. Despite a reduced exposure of non target organisms by this way, an exposure of honey bees through residues in pollen and/or nectar may not be excluded for substances that migrate towards the upper plant parts. Directive 91/414/EEC, related guidance documents and literature data were reviewed and discussed by a working group of the ICPBR (International Commission for Plant-Bee Relationships) with the aim to provide adequate guidance to proceed in a risk assessment in such cases.Results: The review and expert knowledge collected within ecotoxicology, entomology and plant residue area allowed to identify the key parameters that trigger a risk assessment as well as basic hypotheses to consider in deciding for the experimentations required (laboratory, semi-field and field tests). A stepwise, tiered approach is proposed, which has been checked for its ability to discriminate substances that may pose a risk to bees from substances of low concern. Conclusion: The present scheme is proposed to update the current EPPO risk assessment scheme with a special issue on systemic PPPs.Keywords: risk assessment, honey bees, soil or seed treatments, systemic

Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields

Populations of honey bees and other pollinators have declined worldwide in recent years. A variety of stressors have been implicated as potential causes, including agricultural pesticides. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are widely used and highly toxic to honey bees, have been found in previous analyses of honey bee pollen and comb material. However, the routes of exposure have remained largely undefined. We used LC/MS-MS to analyze samples of honey bees, pollen stored in the hive and several potential exposure routes associated with plantings of neonicotinoid treated maize. Our results demonstrate that bees are exposed to these compounds and several other agricultural pesticides in several ways throughout the foraging period. During spring, extremely high levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam were found in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of treated maize seed. We also found neonicotinoids in the soil of each field we sampled, including unplanted fields. Plants visited by foraging bees (dandelions) growing near these fields were found to contain neonicotinoids as well. This indicates deposition of neonicotinoids on the flowers, uptake by the root system, or both. Dead bees collected near hive entrances during the spring sampling period were found to contain clothianidin as well, although whether exposure was oral (consuming pollen) or by contact (soil/planter dust) is unclear. We also detected the insecticide clothianidin in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. When maize plants in our field reached anthesis, maize pollen from treated seed was found to contain clothianidin and other pesticides; and honey bees in our study readily collected maize pollen. These findings clarify some of the mechanisms by which honey bees may be exposed to agricultural pesticides throughout the growing season. These results have implications for a wide range of large-scale annual cropping systems that utilize neonicotinoid seed treatments

Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees

Reported widespread declines of wild and managed insect pollinators have serious consequences for global ecosystem services and agricultural production [1–3]. Bees contribute approximately 80% of insect pollination, so it is important to understand and mitigate the causes of current declines in bee populations [4–6]. Recent studies have implicated the role of pesticides in these declines, as exposure to these chemicals has been associated with changes in bee behaviour [7–11] and reductions in colony queen production [12]. However, the key link between changes in individual behaviour and the consequent impact at the colony level has not been shown. Social bee colonies depend on the collective performance of many individual workers. Thus, although field-level pesticide concentrations can have subtle or sublethal effects at the individual level [8], it is not known whether bee societies can buffer such effects or whether it results in a severe cumulative effect at the colony level. Furthermore, widespread agricultural intensification means that bees are exposed to numerous pesticides when foraging [13–15], yet the possible combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure have rarely been investigated [16,17]. Here we show that chronic exposure of bumblebees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behaviour and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success. We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail

A horizon scan of future threats and opportunities for pollinators and pollination

Background. Pollinators, which provide the agriculturally and ecologically essential service of pollination, are under threat at a global scale. Habitat loss and homogenisation, pesticides, parasites and pathogens, invasive species, and climate change have been identified as past and current threats to pollinators. Actions to mitigate these threats, e.g., agri-environment schemes and pesticide-use moratoriums, exist, but have largely been applied post-hoc. However, future sustainability of pollinators and the service they provide requires anticipation of potential threats and opportunities before they occur, enabling timely implementation of policy and practice to prevent, rather than mitigate, further pollinator declines. Methods.Using a horizon scanning approach we identified issues that are likely to impact pollinators, either positively or negatively, over the coming three decades. Results.Our analysis highlights six high priority, and nine secondary issues. High priorities are: (1) corporate control of global agriculture, (2) novel systemic pesticides, (3) novel RNA viruses, (4) the development of new managed pollinators, (5) more frequent heatwaves and drought under climate change, and (6) the potential positive impact of reduced chemical use on pollinators in non-agricultural settings. Discussion. While current pollinator management approaches are largely driven by mitigating past impacts, we present opportunities for pre-emptive practice, legislation, and policy to sustainably manage pollinators for future generations

The microsporidian parasites Nosema ceranae and Nosema apis are widespread in honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies across Scotland

Nosema ceranae is spreading into areas where Nosema apis already exists. N. ceranae has been reported to cause an asymptomatic infection that may lead, ultimately, to colony collapse. It is thought that there may be a temperature barrier to its infiltration into countries in colder climates. In this study, 71 colonies from Scottish Beekeeper’s Association members have been screened for the presence of N. apis and N. ceranae across Scotland. We find that only 11 of the 71 colonies tested positive for spores by microscopy. However, 70.4 % of colonies screened by PCR revealed the presence of both N. ceranae and N. apis, with only 4.2 or 7 % having either strain alone and 18.3 % being Nosema free. A range of geographically separated colonies testing positive for N. ceranae were sequenced to confirm their identity. All nine sequences confirmed the presence of N. ceranae and indicated the presence of a single new variant. Furthermore, two of the spore-containing colonies had only N. ceranae present, and these exhibited the presence of smaller spores that could be distinguished from N. apis by the analysis of average spore size. Differential quantification of the PCR product revealed N. ceranae to be the dominant species in all seven samples tested. In conclusion, N. ceranae is widespread in Scotland where it exists in combination with the endemic N. apis. A single variant, identical to that found in France (DQ374655) except for the addition of a single nucleotide polymorphism, is present in Scotland

Spontaneous honeybee behaviour is altered by persistent organic pollutants

The effect of environmental pollutants on honeybee behaviour has focused mainly on currently used pesticides. However, honeybees are also exposed to persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The aim of this laboratory based study was to determine if exposure to sublethal field-relevant concentrations of POPs altered the spontaneous behaviour of foraging-age worker honeybees. Honeybees (Apis mellifera) were orally exposed to either a sublethal concentration of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mixture Aroclor 1254 (100 ng/ml), the organochlorine insecticide lindane (2.91 ng/ml) or vehicle (0.01% DMSO, 0.00015% ethanol in 1M sucrose) for 1–4 days. The frequency of single event behaviours and the time engaged in one of four behavioural states (walking, flying, upside down and stationary) were monitored for 15 min after 1, 2, 3 and 4 days exposure. Exposure to Aroclor 1254 but not lindane increased the frequency and time engaged in honeybee motor activity behaviours in comparison to vehicle. The Aroclor 1254—induced hyperactivity was evident after 1 day of exposure and persisted with repeated daily exposure. In contrast, 1 day of exposure to lindane elicited abdominal spasms and increased the frequency of grooming behaviours in comparison to vehicle exposure. After 4 days of exposure, abdominal spasms and increased grooming behaviours were also evident in honeybees exposed to Aroclor 1254. These data demonstrate that POPs can induce distinct behavioural patterns, indicating different toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic properties. The changes in spontaneous behaviour, particularly the PCB-induced chronic hyperactivity and the associated energy demands, may have implications for colony health

Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Their Impacts on Bees: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and Identification of Knowledge Gaps

It has been suggested that the widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides threatens bees, but research on this topic has been surrounded by controversy. In order to synthesize which research approaches have been used to examine the effect of neonicotinoids on bees and to identify knowledge gaps, we systematically reviewed research on this subject that was available on the Web of Science and PubMed in June 2015. Most of the 216 primary research studies were conducted in Europe or North America (82%), involved the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (78%), and concerned the western honey bee Apis mellifera (75%). Thus, little seems to be known about neonicotinoids and bees in areas outside Europe and North America. Furthermore, because there is considerable variation in ecological traits among bee taxa, studies on honey bees are not likely to fully predict impacts of neonicotinoids on other species. Studies on crops were dominated by seed-treated maize, oilseed rape (canola) and sunflower, whereas less is known about potential side effects on bees from the use of other application methods on insect pollinated fruit and vegetable crops, or on lawns and ornamental plants. Laboratory approaches were most common, and we suggest that their capability to infer real-world consequences are improved when combined with information from field studies about realistic exposures to neonicotinoids. Studies using field approaches often examined only bee exposure to neonicotinoids and more field studies are needed that measure impacts of exposure. Most studies measured effects on individual bees. We suggest that effects on the individual bee should be linked to both mechanisms at the sub-individual level and also to the consequences for the colony and wider bee populations. As bees are increasingly facing multiple interacting pressures future research needs to clarify the role of neonicotinoids in relative to other drivers of bee declines