Searching beyond the streetlight: Neonicotinoid exposure alters the neurogenomic state of worker honey bees

Relative impacts of Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata:Varroidae) infestation and pesticide exposure on honey bee colony health and survival in a high-intensity corn and soybean producing region in northern Iowa

The negative effects of Varroa and pesticides on colony health and survival are among the most important concerns to beekeepers. To compare the relative contribution of Varroa, pesticides, and interactions between them on honey bee colony performance and survival, a 2-year longitudinal study was performed in corn and soybean growing areas of Iowa. Varroa infestation and pesticide content in stored pollen were measured from 3 apiaries across a gradient of corn and soybean production areas and compared to measurements of colony health and survival. Colonies were not treated for Varroa the first year, but were treated the second year, leading to reduced Varroa infestation that was associated with larger honey bee populations, increased honey production, and higher colony survival. Pesticide detections were highest in areas with high-intensity corn and soybean production treated with conventional methods. Pesticide detections were positively associated with honey bee population size in May 2015 in the intermediate conventional (IC) and intermediate organic (IO) apiaries. Varroa populations across all apiaries in October 2015 were negatively correlated with miticide and chlorpyrifos detections. Miticide detections across all apiaries and neonicotinoid detections in the IC apiary in May 2015 were higher in colonies that survived. In July 2015, colony survival was positively associated with total pesticide detections in all apiaries and chlorpyrifos exposure in the IC and high conventional (HC) apiaries. This research suggests that Varroa are a major cause of reduced colony performance and increased colony losses, and honey bees are resilient upon low to moderate pesticide detections.

Recommendations to reduce the streetlight effect and gray areas limiting the knowledge of the effects of plant protection products on biodiversity

Preserving biodiversity against the adverse effects of plant protection products (PPPs) is a major environmental and societal issue. However, despite intensive investigation into the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs, the knowledge produced remains fragmented given the sheer diversity of PPPs. This is due, at least in part, to a strong streetlight effect in the field of ecotoxicology. Indeed, while some PPPs have been investigated in numerous ecotoxicological studies, there are many for which the scientific literature still has little or no information on their ecotoxicological risks and effects. The PPPs under the streetlight include a large variety of legacy substances and a more limited number of more recent or currently-in-use substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate and the neonicotinoid insecticides. Furthermore, many of the most recent PPPs (including those used in biocontrol) and PPP transformation products (TPs) resulting from abiotic and/or biotic degradation are rarely addressed in the international literature in the field of ecotoxicology. Here, based on a recent collective scientific assessment of the effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the French and European contexts, this article sets out to illustrate the limitations and biases caused by the streetlight effect and numbers of gray areas, and issue recommendations on how to overcome them.

Data mining reveals tissue-specific expression and host lineage-associated forms of Apis mellifera filamentous virus

Background

Apis mellifera filamentous virus (AmFV) is a large double-stranded DNA virus of uncertain phylogenetic position that infects honey bees (Apis mellifera). Little is known about AmFV evolution or molecular aspects of infection. Accurate annotation of open-reading frames (ORFs) is challenged by weak homology to other known viruses. This study was undertaken to evaluate ORFs (including coding-frame conservation, codon bias, and purifying selection), quantify genetic variation within AmFV, identify host characteristics that covary with infection rate, and examine viral expression patterns in different tissues.

Methods

Short-read data were accessed from the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Sequence reads were downloaded from accessions meeting search criteria and scanned for kmers representative of AmFV genomic sequence. Samples with kmer counts above specified thresholds were downloaded in full for mapping to reference sequences and de novo assembly.

Results

At least three distinct evolutionary lineages of AmFV exist. Clade 1 predominates in Europe but in the Americas and Africa it is replaced by the other clades as infection level increases in hosts. Only clade 3 was found at high relative abundance in hosts with African ancestry, whereas all clades achieved high relative abundance in bees of non-African ancestry. In Europe and Africa, clade 2 was generally detected only in low-level infections but was locally dominant in some North American samples. The geographic distribution of clade 3 was consistent with an introduction to the Americas with 'Africanized' honey bees in the 1950s. Localized genomic regions of very high nucleotide divergence in individual isolates suggest recombination with additional, as-yet unidentified AmFV lineages. A set of 155 high-confidence ORFs was annotated based on evolutionary conservation in six AmFV genome sequences representative of the three clades. Pairwise protein-level identity averaged 94.6% across ORFs (range 77.1-100%), which generally exhibited low evolutionary rates and moderate to strong codon bias. However, no robust example of positive diversifying selection on coding sequence was found in these alignments. Most of the genome was detected in RNA short-read alignments. Transcriptome assembly often yielded contigs in excess of 50 kb and containing ORFs in both orientations, and the termini of long transcripts were associated with tandem repeats. Lower levels of AmFV RNA were detected in brain tissue compared to abdominal tissue, and a distinct set of ORFs had minimal to no detectable expression in brain tissue. A scan of DNA accessions from the parasitic mite Varroa destructor was inconclusive with respect to replication in that species.

Discussion

Collectively, these results expand our understanding of this enigmatic virus, revealing transcriptional complexity and co-evolutionary associations with host lineage.

S-dinotefuran affects the social behavior of honeybees (Apis mellifera)and increases their risk in the colony

The toxic effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honeybees is a global concern, whereas little is known about the effect of stereoisomeric pesticides among honeybee social behavior. In this study, we investigated the effects of stereoisomeric dinotefuran on honeybee social behavior. We found that honeybees exhibit a preference for consuming food containing S-dinotefuran, actively engage in trophallaxis with S-dinotefuran-consuming peers, and consequently acquire higher levels of S-dinotefuran compared with R-dinotefuran. In comparison to R-dinotefuran, S-dinotefuran stimulates honeybees to elevate their body temperature, thereby attracting more peers for trophallaxis. Transcriptome analysis revealed a significant enrichment of thermogenesis pathways due to S-dinotefuran exposure. Additionally, metabolome data indicated that S-dinotefuran may enhance body temperature by promoting lipid synthesis in the lysine degradation pathway. Consequently, body temperature emerges as a key factor influencing honeybee social behavior. Our study is the first to highlight the propensity of S-dinotefuran to raise honeybee body temperature, which prompts honeybee to preferentially engage in trophallaxis with peers exhibiting higher body temperatures. This preference may lead honeybees to collect more dinotefuran-contaminated food in the wild, significantly accelerating dinotefuran transmission within a population. Proactive trophallaxis further amplifies the risk of neonicotinoid pesticide transmission within a population, making honeybees that have consumed S-dinotefuran particularly favored within their colonies. These findings may contribute to our understanding of the higher risk associated with neonicotinoid use compared with other pesticides.

Potential Risk of Residues From Neonicotinoid-Treated Sugar Beet Flowering Weeds to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)

In 2018 the European Union (EU) banned the three neonicotinoid insecticides imidacloprid, clothianidin (CLO), and thiamethoxam (TMX), but they can still be used if an EU Member State issues an emergency approval. Such an approval went into effect in 2021 for TMX-coated sugar beet seeds in Germany. Usually, this crop is harvested before flowering without exposing non-target organisms to the active ingredient or its metabolites. In addition to the approval, strict mitigation measures were imposed by the EU and the German federal states. One of the measures was to monitor the drilling of sugar beet and its impact on the environment. Hence we took residue samples from different bee and plant matrices and at different dates to fully map beet growth in the German states of Lower Saxony, Bavaria, and Baden-Württemberg. A total of four treated and three untreated plots were surveyed, resulting in 189 samples. Residue data were evaluated using the US Environmental Protection Agency BeeREX model to assess acute and chronic risk to honey bees from the samples, because oral toxicity data are widely available for both TMX and CLO. Within treated plots, we found no residues either in pools of nectar and honey crop samples (n = 24) or dead bee samples (n = 21). Although 13% of beebread and pollen samples and 88% of weed and sugar beet shoot samples were positive, the BeeREX model found no evidence of acute or chronic risk. We also detected neonicotinoid residues in the nesting material of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis, probably from contaminated soil of a treated plot. All control plots were free of residues. Currently, there are insufficient data on wild bee species to allow for an individual risk assessment. In terms of the future use of these highly potent insecticides, therefore, it must be ensured that all regulatory requirements are complied with to mitigate any unintentional exposure. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:1167-1177. © 2023 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Pesticide risk assessment: honeybee workers are not all equal regarding the risk posed by exposure to pesticides

Toxicological studies in honeybees have long shown that a single pesticide dose or concentration does not necessarily induce a single response. Inter-individual differences in pesticide sensitivity and/or the level of exposure (e.g., ingestion of pesticide-contaminated matrices) may explain this variability in risk posed by a pesticide. Therefore, to better inform pesticide risk assessment for honeybees, we studied the risk posed by pesticides to two behavioral castes, nurse, and forager bees, which are largely represented within colonies and which exhibit large differences in their physiological backgrounds. For that purpose, we determined the sensitivity of nurses and foragers to azoxystrobin (fungicide) and sulfoxaflor (insecticide) upon acute or chronic exposure. Azoxystrobin was found to be weakly toxic to both types of bees. However, foragers were more sensitive to sulfoxaflor than nurses upon acute and chronic exposure. This phenomenon was not explained by better sulfoxaflor metabolization in nurses, but rather by differences in body weight (nurses being 1.6 times heavier than foragers). Foragers consistently consumed more sugar syrup than nurses, and this increased consumption was even more pronounced with pesticide-contaminated syrup (at specific concentrations). Altogether, the stronger susceptibility and exposure of foragers to sulfoxaflor contributed to increases of 2 and tenfold for the acute and chronic risk quotients, respectively, compared to nurses. In conclusion, to increase the safety margin and avoid an under-estimation of the risk posed by insecticides to honeybees, we recommend systematically including forager bees in regulatory tests.