Supplying honey bees with waterers: a precautionary measure to reduce exposure to pesticides

Field agrochemical exposure impacts locomotor activity in wild bumblebees

Agricultural intensification has been identified as one of the key causes of global insect biodiversity losses. These losses have been further linked to the widespread use of agrochemicals associated with modern agricultural practices. Many of these chemicals are known to have negative sublethal effects on commercial pollinators, such as managed honeybees and bumblebees, but less is known about the impacts on wild bees. Laboratory-based studies with commercial pollinators have consistently shown that pesticide exposure can impact bee behavior, with cascading effects on foraging performance, reproductive success, and pollination services. However, these studies typically assess only one chemical, neglecting the complexity of real-world exposure to multiple agrochemicals and other stressors. In the summer of 2020, we collected wild-foraging workers of the common eastern bumblebee, Bombus impatiens, from five squash (Cucurbita) agricultural sites (organic and conventional farms), selected to represent a range of agrochemical, including neonicotinoid insecticide, use. For each bee, we measured two behaviors relevant to foraging success and previously shown to be impacted by pesticide exposure: sucrose responsiveness and locomotor activity. Following behavioral testing, we used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) chemical analysis to detect and quantify the presence of 92 agrochemicals in each bumblebee. Bees collected from our sites did not vary in pesticide exposure as expected. While we found a limited occurrence of neonicotinoids, two fungicides (azoxystrobin and difenoconazole) were detected at all sites, and the pesticide synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO) was present in all 123 bees. We found that bumblebees that contained higher levels of PBO were less active, and this effect was stronger for larger bumblebee workers. While PBO is unlikely to be the direct cause of the reduction in bee activity, it could be an indicator of exposure to pyrethroids and/or other insecticides that we were unable to directly quantify, but which PBO is frequently tank-mixed with during pesticide applications on crops. We did not find a relationship between agrochemical exposure and bumblebee sucrose responsiveness. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of a sublethal behavioral impact of agrochemical exposure on wild-foraging bees.

Novel indices reveal that pollinator exposure to pesticides varies across biological compartments and crop surroundings

Declines in insect pollinators have been linked to a range of causative factors such as disease, loss of habitats, the quality and availability of food, and exposure to pesticides. Here, we analysed an extensive dataset generated from pesticide screening of foraging insects, pollen-nectar stores/beebread, pollen and ingested nectar across three species of bees collected at 128 European sites set in two types of crop. In this paper, we aimed to (i) derive a new index to summarise key aspects of complex pesticide exposure data and (ii) understand the links between pesticide exposures depicted by the different matrices, bee species and apple orchards versus oilseed rape crops. We found that summary indices were highly correlated with the number of pesticides detected in the related matrix but not with which pesticides were present. Matrices collected from apple orchards generally contained a higher number of pesticides (7.6 pesticides per site) than matrices from sites collected from oilseed rape crops (3.5 pesticides), with fungicides being highly represented in apple crops. A greater number of pesticides were found in pollen-nectar stores/beebread and pollen matrices compared with nectar and bee body matrices. Our results show that for a complete assessment of pollinator pesticide exposure, it is necessary to consider several different exposure routes and multiple species of bees across different agricultural systems.

Weak evidence base for bee protective pesticide mitigation measures

Pesticides help produce food for humanity's growing population, yet they have negative impacts on the environment. Limiting these impacts, while maintaining food supply, is a crucial challenge for modern agriculture. Mitigation measures are actions taken by pesticide users, which modify the risk of the application to nontarget organisms, such as bees. Through these, the impacts of pesticides can be reduced, with minimal impacts on the efficacy of the pesticide. Here we collate the scientific evidence behind mitigation measures designed to reduce pesticide impacts on bees using a systematic review methodology. We included all publications which tested the effects of any pesticide mitigation measure (using a very loose definition) on bees, at any scale (from individual through to population level), so long as they presented evidence on the efficacy of the measure. We found 34 publications with direct evidence on the topic, covering a range of available mitigation measures. No currently used mitigation measures were thoroughly tested, and some entirely lacked empirical support, showing a weak evidence base for current recommendations and policy. We found mitigation measure research predominantly focuses on managed bees, potentially failing to protect wild bees. We also found that label-recommended mitigation measures, which are the mitigation measures most often applied, specifically are seldom tested empirically. Ultimately, we recommend that more, and stronger, scientific evidence is required to justify existing mitigation measures to help reduce the impacts of pesticides on bees while maintaining crop protection.

Hydrocarbons and other risks in a beekeeping area of México: the precautionary principle for prevention and biotechnology for remediation

The Yucatan Peninsula is the most important beekeeping region. However, the presence of hydrocarbons and pesticides violates the human right to a healthy environment twice over; it can affect human beings directly due to its toxicological characteristics, but it also constitutes a risk, not very well dimensioned, regarding the loss of biodiversity of the ecosystem via the impact on pollination. On the other hand, the precautionary principle obliges the authorities to prevent damage to the ecosystem that may be caused by the productive activity of individuals. Although there are studies that separately warn about the decrease of bees in the Yucatan due to industrial activity, this work has the novelty of presenting an intersectoral analysis of the risk that includes the soy industry, the swine industry and the tourist industry. The latter incorporates a new risk not considered until now, which is the presence of hydrocarbons in the ecosystem. Additionally, we can demonstrate that hydrocarbons, such as diesel and gasoline, should be avoided when using no genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in bioreactors. The objective of this work was to propose the precautionary principle around the risks in a beekeeping area and to propose biotechnology without using GMOs.

Fungicide Exposure in Honey Bee Hives Varies By Time, Worker Role, and Proximity to Orchards in Spring

Fungicides are commonly applied to prevent diseases in eastern North American cherry orchards at the same time that honey bees (Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)) are rented for pollination services. Fungicide exposure in honey bees can cause negative health effects. To measure fungicide exposure, we sampled commercial honey bee colonies during orchard bloom at two commercial tart cherry orchards and one holding yard in northern Michigan over two seasons. Nurse bees, foragers, larvae, pollen, bee bread, and wax were screened for captan, chlorothalonil, and thiophanate-methyl. We also looked at the composition of pollens collected by foragers during spring bloom. We found differences in fungicide residue levels between nurse bees and foragers, with higher captan levels in nurse bees. We also found that residue levels of chlorothalonil in workers were significantly increased during tart cherry bloom, and that nurse bees from hives adjacent to orchards had significantly higher chlorothalonil residues than nurse bees from hives kept in a holding yard. Our results suggest that fungicide exposure of individual honey bees depends greatly on hive location in relation to mass-flowering crops, and worker role (life stage) at the time of collection. In some pollen samples, captan and chlorothalonil were detected at levels known to cause negative health effects for honey bees. This study increases our understanding of exposure risk for bees under current bloom time orchard management in this region. Further research is needed to balance crop disease management requirements with necessary pollination services and long-term pollinator health.

Quantifying exposure of bumblebee (Bombus spp.) queens to pesticide residues when hibernating in agricultural soils

Exposure to pesticides is a major threat to bumblebee (Bombus spp.) health. In temperate regions, queens of many bumblebee species hibernate underground for several months, putting them at potentially high risk of exposure to soil contaminants. The extent to which bumblebees are exposed to residues in agricultural soils during hibernation is currently unknown, which limits our understanding of the full pesticide exposome for bumblebees throughout their lifecycle. To generate field exposure estimates for overwintering bumblebee queens to pesticide residues, we sampled soils from areas corresponding to suitable likely hibernation sites at six apple orchards and 13 diversified farms throughout Southern Ontario (Canada) in fall 2019-2020. Detectable levels of pesticides were found in 65 of 66 soil samples analysed for multi-pesticide residues (UPLC-MS/MS). A total of 53 active ingredients (AIs) were detected in soils, including 27 fungicides, 13 insecticides, and 13 herbicides. Overall, the frequency of detection, residue levels (median = 37.82 vs. 2.20 ng/g), and number of pesticides per sample (mean = 12 vs. 4 AIs) were highest for orchard soils compared to soils from diversified farms. Ninety-one percent of samples contained multiple residues (up to 29 different AIs per sample), including mixtures of insecticides and fungicides that might lead to synergistic effects. Our results suggest that when hibernating in agricultural areas, bumblebee queens are very likely to be exposed to a wide range of pesticide residues in soil, including potentially harmful levels of insecticides (e.g., cyantraniliprole up to 148.82 ng/g). Our study indicates the importance of empirically testing the potential effects of pesticide residues in soils for hibernating bumblebee queens, using field exposure data such as those generated here. The differences in potential exposure that we detected between cropping systems can also be used to better inform regulations that govern the use of agricultural pesticides, notably in apple orchards.

Fungicides and bees: a review of exposure and risk

Fungicides account for more than 35% of the global pesticide market and their use is predicted to increase in the future. While fungicides are commonly applied during bloom when bees are likely foraging on crops, whether real-world exposure to these chemicals - alone or in combination with other stressors - constitutes a threat to the health of bees is still the subject of great uncertainty. The first step in estimating the risks of exposure to fungicides for bees is to understand how and to what extent bees are exposed to these active ingredients. Here we review the current knowledge that exists about exposure to fungicides that bees experience in the field, and link quantitative data on exposure to acute and chronic risk of lethal endpoints for honey bees (Apis mellifera). From the 702 publications we screened, 76 studies contained quantitative data on residue detections in honey bee matrices, and a further 47 provided qualitative information about exposure for a range of bee taxa through various routes. We compiled data for 90 fungicides and metabolites that have been detected in honey, beebread, pollen, beeswax, and the bodies of honey bees. The risks posed to honey bees by fungicide residues was estimated through the EPA Risk Quotient (RQ) approach. Based on residue concentrations detected in honey and pollen/beebread, none of the reported fungicides exceeded the levels of concern (LOC) set by regulatory agencies for acute risk, while 3 and 12 fungicides exceeded the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) chronic LOC for honey bees and wild bees, respectively. When considering exposure to all bees, fungicides of most concern include many broad-spectrum systemic fungicides, as well as the widely used broad-spectrum contact fungicide chlorothalonil. In addition to providing a detailed overview of the frequency and extent of fungicide residue detections in the bee environment, we identified important research gaps and suggest future directions to move towards a more comprehensive understanding and mitigation of the risks of exposure to fungicides for bees, including synergistic risks of co-exposure to fungicides and other pesticides or pathogens.