Acute Toxicity of Fungicide-Insecticide-Adjuvant Combinations Applied to Almonds During Bloom on Adult Honey Bees

Size-dependent responses of colony-founding bumblebee (Bombus impatiens) queens to exposure to pesticide residues in soil during hibernation

Bumblebees and other key pollinators are experiencing global declines, a phenomenon driven by multiple environmental stressors, including pesticide exposure. While bumblebee queens spend most of their life hibernating underground, no study to date has examined how exposure to pesticide-contaminated soils might affect bumblebee queens during this solitary phase of their lifecycle. We exposed Bombus impatiens queens (n = 303) to soil treated with field-realistic concentrations of two diamide insecticides (chlorantraniliprole and cyantraniliprole) and two fungicides (boscalid and difenoconazole), alone or combined, during a 30-week hibernation period. We found that exposure to boscalid residues in soil doubled the likelihood of queens surviving through the colony initiation period (after successful hibernation) and laying eggs. Our data also revealed complex interactions between pesticide exposure and queen body mass on aspects of colony founding. Among others, exposure to cyantraniliprole led to lethal and sublethal post-hibernation effects that were dependent on queen size, with larger queens showing higher mortality rates, delayed emergence of their first brood, and producing smaller workers. Our results show that effects of pesticide exposure depend on intrinsic traits of bumblebee queen physiology and challenge our understanding of how bees respond to pesticides under environmentally realistic exposure scenarios.

Pesticide Contamination in Native North American Crops, Part I-Development of a Baseline and Comparison of Honey Bee Exposure to Residues in Lowbush Blueberry and Cranberry

A pesticide exposure baseline for honey bees was compiled for two New England cropping systems, the native North American plant species consisting of lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton) and cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton). More unique pesticide compounds were applied in blueberry than cranberry, but the numbers of pesticides discovered in trapped honey bee pollen were similar between the two crop systems. Not all pesticides found in pollen were the result of the applications reported by growers of either crop. When comparing residues, number of pesticides detected, total concentration, and risk quotient varied between the two crops. Also, blueberry was dominated by fungicides and miticides (varroacides) and cranberry was dominated by insecticides and herbicides. When comparing reported grower applications that were matched with detection in residues, the proportion of pesticide numbers, concentrations, and risk quotients varied by crop system and pesticide class. In most cases, pesticide residue concentrations were of low risk (low risk quotient) to honey bees in these crops. Estimation of decay rates of some of the most common pesticide residues under field conditions could aid growers in selection of less persistent compounds, together with safe application dates, prior to bringing in honey bees for pollination.

Enhancing knowledge of chemical exposures and fate in honey bee hives: Insights from colony structure and interactions

Honey bees are unintentionally exposed to a wide range of chemicals through various routes in their natural environment, yet research on the cumulative effects of multi-chemical and sublethal exposures on important caste members, including the queen bee and brood, is still in its infancy. The hive's social structure and food-sharing (trophallaxis) practices are important aspects to consider when identifying primary and secondary exposure pathways for residential hive members and possible chemical reservoirs within the colony. Secondary exposures may also occur through chemical transfer (maternal offloading) to the brood and by contact through possible chemical diffusion from wax cells to all hive members. The lack of research on peer-to-peer exposures to contaminants and their metabolites may be in part due to the limitations in sensitive analytical techniques for monitoring chemical fate and dispersion. Combined application of automated honey bee monitoring and modern chemical trace analysis techniques could offer rapid progress in quantifying chemical transfer and accumulation within the hive environment and developing effective mitigation strategies for toxic chemical co-exposures. To enhance the understanding of chemical fate and toxicity within the entire colony, it is crucial to consider both the intricate interactions among hive members and the potential synergistic effects arising from combinations of chemical and their metabolites.

Residue dynamics of a contact and a systemic fungicide in pollen, nectar, and other plant matrices of courgette (Cucurbita pepo L.)

Pollen and nectar can be contaminated with a range of pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. Since these matrices are important food sources for pollinators and other beneficial insects, their contamination can represent a key route of exposure. However, limited knowledge exists with respect to pesticide residue levels and their dynamics in these matrices for many crops and active ingredients (AIs). We used controlled glasshouse studies to investigate the residue dynamics of a systemic (cyprodinil) and a contact (fludioxonil) fungicide in the floral matrices and other plant parts of courgette/zucchini (Cucurbita pepo L.). We aimed to better understand the processes behind residue accumulation and decline in pollen and nectar. Each AI was applied to plants, either by spraying whole plants or by targeted spraying onto leaves only. Samples of pollen, nectar, anthers, flowers, and leaves were taken on the day of application and each subsequent morning for up to 13 days and analysed for residues using LC-MS/MS. Significant differences in residue levels and dynamics were found between AIs and floral matrices. The present study allowed for the identification of potential routes by which residues translocate between tissues and to link those to the physicochemical properties of each AI, which may facilitate the prediction of residue levels in pollen and nectar. Residues of the contact AI declined more quickly than those of the systemic AI in pollen and nectar. Our results further suggest that the risk of oral exposure for pollinators may be considerably reduced by using contact AIs during the green bud stage of plants, but application of systemic compounds could still result in a low, but continuous long-term exposure for pollinators with limited decline.

Trisiloxane Surfactants Negatively Affect Reproductive Behaviors and Enhance Viral Replication in Honey Bees

Trisiloxane surfactants are often applied in formulated adjuvant products to blooming crops, including almonds, exposing the managed honey bees (Apis mellifera) used for pollination of these crops and persisting in colony matrices, such as bee bread. Despite this, little is known regarding the effects of trisiloxane surfactants on important aspects of colony health, such as reproduction. In the present study, we use laboratory assays to examine how exposure to field-relevant concentrations of three trisiloxane surfactants found in commonly used adjuvant formulations affect queen oviposition rates, worker interactions with the queen, and worker susceptibility to endogenous viral pathogens. Trisiloxane surfactants were administered at 5 mg/kg in pollen supplement diet for 14 days. No effects on worker behavior or physiology could be detected, but our results demonstrate that hydroxy-capped trisiloxane surfactants can negatively affect queen oviposition and methyl-capped trisiloxane surfactants cause increased replication of Deformed Wing Virus in workers, suggesting that trisiloxane surfactant use while honey bees are foraging may negatively impact colony longevity and growth. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:222-233. © 2023 SETAC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Review: the risks of spray adjuvants to honey bees

Pesticide applications are often made as tank mixes containing multiple pesticide products and may include spray adjuvants to enhance pesticidal activities. The primary aim of adjuvant products is to increase the spreading and sticking of spray droplets and to increase the penetration of active ingredients through the cuticles of leaves or targeted pests, which can reduce the amount of active ingredient needed for effective pest control. Adjuvants are made up of compounds drawn from the "inert ingredient" list maintained by EPA but are identified as "principal functioning agents" when used in adjuvant products. These inert compounds do not undergo the same testing and risk assessment process that is required of pesticide active ingredients and generally have no mitigation measures that prevent application onto crops during bloom at times of day when bees are foraging. Honey bees (Apis mellifera;Hymenoptera:Apidae) are at an increased risk of exposure to adjuvant tank mixtures while providing agricultural pollination services. Colony losses attributed to pesticide applications thought to have low risk to honey bees have been reported, highlighting the need to better understand the toxicity of adjuvants included in pesticide tank mixtures. This review summarizes current literature on the risks posed to honey bees by agricultural adjuvants and tank mix combinations of adjuvants with pesticides. Based on the current state of knowledge, we make recommendations to pesticide applicators, product manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and researchers regarding adjuvant toxicity to honey bees with the goal of reducing risks that adjuvants pose to honey bees and other beneficial insects.

The role of the veterinary diagnostic toxicologist in apiary health

Susceptibility of individuals and groups to toxicants depends on complex interactions involving the host, environment, and other exposures. Apiary diagnostic investigation and honey bee health are truly population medicine: the colony is the patient. Here we provide basic information on the application of toxicology to the testing of domestic honey bees, and, in light of recent research, expand on some of the challenges of interpreting analytical chemistry findings as they pertain to hive health. The hive is an efficiently organized system of wax cells used to store brood, honey, and bee bread, and is protected by the bee-procured antimicrobial compound propolis. Toxicants can affect individual workers outside or inside the hive, with disease processes that range from acute to chronic and subclinical to lethal. Toxicants can impact brood and contaminate honey, bee bread, and structural wax. We provide an overview of important natural and synthetic toxicants to which honey bees are exposed; behavioral, husbandry, and external environmental factors influencing exposure; short- and long-term impacts of toxicant exposure on individual bee and colony health; and the convergent impacts of stress, nutrition, infectious disease, and toxicant exposures on colony health. Current and potential future toxicology testing options are included. Common contaminants in apiary products consumed or used by humans (honey, wax, pollen), their sources, and the potential need for product testing are also noted.

Successful application of anthranilic diamides in preventing small hive beetle (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) infestation in honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies

The nest-scavenging beetle Aethina tumida remains a persistent problem for beekeepers in parts of the Southeast United States, where warm wet soils allow beetle populations to grow rapidly and overwhelm colonies, especially during the summer dearth. Furthermore, small hive beetle infestation prevents beekeepers from easily provisioning colonies with additional pollen or protein feed (patties), preventing holistic management of honey bee health via improved nutrition, and reducing the economic potential of package and nucleus colony rearing in the Southeast. Here, we demonstrate using both in vitro laboratory trials and a small in vivo field trial that the differential specificity of anthranilic diamide insecticides (specifically, chlorantraniliprole) between bees and beetles allows for the control and prevention of small hive beetle infestation in honey bee colonies even when feeding with large patties. Honey bees show orders of magnitude higher tolerance to chlorantraniliprole compared to small hive beetles, opening new avenues for improving bee health including during spring splits and throughout the summer.

Effects of pesticide-adjuvant combinations used in almond orchards on olfactory responses to social signals in honey bees (Apis mellifera)

Exposure to agrochemical sprays containing pesticides and tank-mix adjuvants has been implicated in post-bloom mortality, particularly of brood, in honey bee colonies brought into California almond orchards for pollination. Although adjuvants are generally considered to be biologically inert, some adjuvants have exhibited toxicity and sublethal effects, including decreasing survival rates of next-generation queens. Honey bees have a highly developed olfactory system to detect and discriminate among social signals. To investigate the impact of pesticide-adjuvant combinations on honey bee signal perception, we performed electroantennography assays to assess alterations in their olfactory responsiveness to the brood ester pheromone (BEP), the volatile larval pheromone β-ocimene, and the alarm pheromone 2-heptanone. These assays aimed to uncover potential mechanisms underlying changes in social behaviors and reduced brood survival after pesticide exposure. We found that combining the adjuvant Dyne-Amic with the fungicide Tilt (propiconazole) and the insecticide Altacor (chlorantraniliprole) synergistically enhanced olfactory responses to three concentrations of BEP and as well exerted dampening and compensatory effects on responses to 2-heptanone and β-ocimene, respectively. In contrast, exposure to adjuvant alone or the combination of fungicide and insecticide had no effect on olfactory responses to BEP at most concentrations but altered responses to β-ocimene and 2-heptanone. Exposure to Dyne-Amic, Altacor, and Tilt increased BEP signal amplitude, indicating potential changes in olfactory receptor sensitivity or sensilla permeability to odorants. Given that, in a previous study, next-generation queens raised by nurses exposed to the same treated pollen experienced reduced survival, these new findings highlight the potential disruption of social signaling in honey bees and its implications for colony reproductive success.

A novel laboratory method for simulating pollinator exposure to agrochemical-laden particulate matter

Environmental transport and deposition of particulate matter (PM) associated with toxic chemicals has begun to receive attention as a source of risk to pollinators. For example, dust arising from manipulations of insecticide-treated seed has potential to exert toxic effects among non-target insects. Similarly, synthetic steroid growth promoters, antibiotics and multiple insecticides and parasiticides detected in fugitive beef cattle feedyard PM may also negatively impact pollinators since many of these chemicals have been detected on wildflowers and pollinators collected near beef cattle feedyards. Therefore, there is a need to assess risk to pollinators posed by deposition of agrochemical-laden PM, both in the field and the laboratory. Unfortunately, established laboratory methods for simulating PM exposure or toxicity associated with contaminated PM are few and highly situation-specific. Herein we describe development and use of a PM circulation system that can be employed to evaluate toxicity of agrochemical-contaminated PM in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Two model organisms (honeybees (Apis mellifera) and mason bees (Osmia lignaria)) were exposed to agrochemical-free PM in the circulator system, and post-exposure mortality was compared with controls. No significant differences in mortality between exposed and control bees were observed. Next, honeybees and mason bees were exposed to PM spiked with an insecticide known to exert toxic effects to pollinators (thiamethoxam). Bees experienced significantly higher mortality when exposed to thiamethoxam-laden PM at environmentally relevant concentrations as compared to bees exposed to agrochemical-free PM. These results confirm the validity of these methods for use in controlled laboratory PM toxicity tests and offer a source of positive and negative control groups for laboratory and field experiments examining exposure of pollinators to potentially toxic agrochemical-laden PM. This method facilitates generation of more realistic toxicity data than standard contact toxicity tests when pollinator exposure scenarios involve particulate-based agrochemicals or other toxic chemicals.

Exposure of Cryptococcus neoformans to Seven Commonly Used Agricultural Azole Fungicides Induces Resistance to Fluconazole as Well as Cross-Resistance to Voriconazole, Posaconazole, Itraconazole and Isavuconazole

BACKGROUND

Cross-resistance to medical azoles by exposure to azole pesticides is well documented for Aspergillus family fungi but is poorly evaluated for other environmental pathogen fungi, particularly for yeasts belonging to the Cryptococcus neoformans/Cryptococcus gattii species complexes.

METHODS

One thousand C. neoformans yeast were exposed to various concentrations of seven different commonly used azole pesticides. Clones surviving exposure were picked randomly, and their minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, itraconazole and isavuconazole were assessed.

RESULTS

Depending on the pesticide used for exposure, up to 13.3% of selected Cryptococcus colonies showed a phenotype of resistance to fluconazole, and among them, several showed cross-resistance to another or several other medical azoles. Molecular mechanisms involved in the resistance setups seem to be dependent on ERG11 and AFR1 gene overexpression.

CONCLUSION

Exposure to any of the seven azole pesticides tested is capable of increasing the MIC of fluconazole in C. neoformans, including up to the level of the fluconazole-resistant phenotype, as well as generating cross-resistance to other medical azoles in some cases.

Does pesticide use in agriculture present a risk to the terrestrial biota?

Inadequate pesticide application practices have many implications on human and environmental health. This research aimed at assessing pesticide risks on bees, non-target arthropods (NTAs) and earthworms, using PRIMET (Pesticide Risks in the Tropics to Man, Environment and Trade), a pesticide risk model, in the western highlands agro-ecological zone of Cameroon. For this purpose, information on pesticide usage stratagem (dosage, application interval and number of applications) and ecotoxicological properties (median lethal doses, persistence and no observable effect concentration) were gathered and entered into PRIMET to acquire the Predicted Exposure Concentration (PEC), No Effect Concentration (NEC) and Exposure Toxicity Ratio, ETR = PEC / NEC). The risk assessment revealed that the riskiest pesticides for earthworms were acetamiprid, glyphosate and imidacloprid with ETR values of 2963, 1667 and 419 respectively. For bees, acetamiprid, cypermethrin, emamectin benzoate, imidacloprid, and lambda-cyhalothrin were highly risky, with respective ETR values of 3252, 487, 278, 1383 and 295. The model predicted NTAs to be predominantly defenceless against cypermethrin and imidacloprid, as these compounds exhibited the topmost values of ETR of, 4.3 × 10⁸ and 4.4 × 10⁷, respectively. Other pesticides that were modelled to be highly risky to NTAs comprised chlorothalonil (ETR = 2076), cymoxanil (ETR = 1133), emamectin benzoate (ETR = 1700), lambda-cyhalothrin (ETR = 4900) and metalaxyl (ETR = 2303). Some compounds gave evidence of multi-level risks: imidacloprid exhibited high risk to all the organisms (earthworms, bees and NTAs); acetamiprid was risky to earthworms and bees, while cypermethrin, emamectin benzoate and lambda-cyhalothrin, were modelled to pose a risk to bees and NTAs. Regulating the use of these perilous pesticides should be encouraged in agroecosystems to protect environmental and human health.

Are fungicides a driver of European foulbrood disease in honey bee colonies pollinating blueberries?

Introduction

Blueberry producers in Canada depend heavily on pollination services provided by honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Anecdotal reports indicate an increased incidence of European foulbrood (EFB), a bacterial disease caused by Melissococcus plutonius, is compromising pollination services and colony health. Fungicidal products are commonly used in blueberry production to prevent fungal diseases such as anthracnose and botrytis fruit rot. Pesticide exposure has been implicated in honey bee immunosuppression; however, the effects of commercial fungicidal products, commonly used during blueberry pollination, on honey bee larval susceptibility to EFB have not been investigated.

Methods

Using an in vitro infection model of EFB, we infected first instar honey bee larvae with M. plutonius 2019 BC1, a strain isolated from an EFB outbreak in British Columbia, Canada, and chronically exposed larvae to environmentally relevant concentrations of fungicide products over 6 days. Survival was monitored until pupation or eclosion.

Results

We found that larvae chronically exposed to one, two, or three fungicidal products [Supra® Captan 80WDG (Captan), low concentration of Kenja™ 400SC (Kenja), Luna® Tranquility (Luna), and/or Switch® 62.5 WG (Switch)], did not significantly reduce survival from EFB relative to infected controls. When larvae were exposed to four fungicide products concurrently, we observed a significant 24.2% decrease in survival from M. plutonius infection (p = 0.0038). Similarly, higher concentrations of Kenja significantly reduced larval survival by 24.7–33.0% from EFB (p < 0.0001).

Discussion

These in vitro results suggest that fungicides may contribute to larval susceptibility and response to M. plutonius infections. Further testing of other pesticide combinations is warranted as well as continued surveillance of pesticide residues in blueberry-pollinating colonies.

Using the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Cell Line AmE-711 to Evaluate Insecticide Toxicity

One of the main contributors to poor productivity and elevated mortality of honey bee colonies globally is insecticide exposure. Whole-organism and colony-level studies have demonstrated the effects of insecticides on many aspects of honey bee biology and have also shown their interactions with pathogens. However, there is a need for in vitro studies using cell lines to provide greater illumination of the effects of insecticides on honey bee cellular and molecular processes. We used a continuous cell line established from honey bee embryonic tissues (AmE-711) in assays that enabled assessment of cell viability in response to insecticide exposure. We exposed AmE-711 cells to four formulations, each containing a different insecticide. Treatment of cells with the insecticides resulted in a concentration-dependent reduction in viability after a 24-h exposure, whereas long-term exposure (120 h) to sublethal concentrations had limited effects on viability. The 24-h exposure data allowed us to predict the half-maximal lethal concentration (LC50) for each insecticide using a four-parameter logistical model. We then exposed cells for 12 h to the predicted LC50 and observed changes in morphology that would indicate stress and death. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis corroborated changes in morphology: expression of a cellular stress response gene, 410087a, increased after an 18-h exposure to the predicted LC50. Demonstration of the effects of insecticides through use of AmE-711 provides a foundation for additional research addressing issues specific to honey bee toxicology and complements whole-organism and colony-level approaches. Moreover, advances in the use of AmE-711 in high-throughput screening and in-depth analysis of cell regulatory networks will promote the discovery of novel control agents with decreased negative impacts on honey bees. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:88-99. Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Selected Biochemical Markers Change after Oral Administration of Pesticide Mixtures in Honey Bees

The honey bee is an important pollinator. In the environment, it can be exposed to many harmful factors, such as pesticides. Nowadays, attention is paid to evaluating the potentially harmful effects of these substances. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of worst-case environmental concentrations of pesticide mixtures on honey bee survival and selected physiological markers (the activity of ALT, AST, ALP, and GGTP, and the concentration of albumin, creatinine, urea, and uric acid). Pesticides of three different groups (insecticide-acetamiprid, herbicide-glyphosate, and fungicide-tebuconazole) and their mixtures were resolved in 50% (w/v) sucrose solution and given to bees ad libitum. After 24 h, hemolymph was collected. All mixtures caused higher mortality than single pesticides. Pesticides in mixtures caused disturbances in biochemical markers, and in some cases the interaction between pesticides was synergistic. The mixtures had individual effects on physiology, and the results were sensitive to changes in proportions.