Pesticides and pollinators: a context-sensitive policy approach

Systemic pesticides in a solitary bee pollen food store affect larval development and increase pupal mortality

Solitary bees are often exposed to various pesticides applied for pest control on farmland while providing pollination services to food crops. Increasing evidence suggests that sublethal toxicity of agricultural pesticides affects solitary bees differently than the social bees used to determine regulatory thresholds, such as honey bees and bumblebees. Studies on solitary bees are challenging because of the difficulties in obtaining large numbers of eggs or young larvae for bioassays. Here we show the toxic and sublethal developmental effects of four widely used plant systemic pesticides on the Japanese orchard bee (Osmia cornifrons). Pollen food stores of this solitary bee were treated with different concentrations of three insecticides (acetamiprid, flonicamid, and sulfoxaflor) and a fungicide (dodine). Eggs were transplanted to the treated pollen and larvae were allowed to feed on the pollen stores after egg hatch. The effects of chronic ingestion of contaminated pollen were measured until adult eclosion. This year-long study revealed that chronic exposure to all tested pesticides delayed larval development and lowered larval and adult body weights. Additionally, exposure to the systemic fungicide resulted in abnormal larval defecation and increased mortality at the pupal stage, indicating potential risk to bees from fungicide exposure. These findings demonstrate potential threats to solitary bees from systemic insecticides and fungicides and will help in making policy decisions to mitigate these effects.

Do pesticide and pathogen interactions drive wild bee declines?

There is clear evidence for wild insect declines globally. Habitat loss, climate change, pests, pathogens and environmental pollution have all been shown to cause detrimental effects on insects. However, interactive effects between these stressors may be the key to understanding reported declines. Here, we review the literature on pesticide and pathogen interactions for wild bees, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest avenues for future research fostering mitigation of the observed declines. The limited studies available suggest that effects of pesticides most likely override effects of pathogens. Bees feeding on flowers and building sheltered nests, are likely less adapted to toxins compared to other insects, which potential susceptibility is enhanced by the reduced number of genes encoding detoxifying enzymes compared with other insect species. However, to date all 10 studies using a fully-crossed design have been conducted in the laboratory on social bees using Crithidia spp. or Nosema spp., identifying an urgent need to test solitary bees and other pathogens. Similarly, since laboratory studies do not necessarily reflect field conditions, semi-field and field studies are essential if we are to understand these interactions and their potential effects in the real-world. In conclusion, there is a clear need for empirical (semi-)field studies on a range of pesticides, pathogens, and insect species to better understand the pathways and mechanisms underlying their potential interactions, in particular their relevance for insect fitness and population dynamics. Such data are indispensable to drive forward robust modelling of interactive effects in different environmental settings and foster predictive science. This will enable pesticide and pathogen interactions to be put into the context of other stressors more broadly, evaluating their relative importance in driving the observed declines of wild bees and other insects. Ultimately, this will enable the development of more effective mitigation measures to protect bees and the ecosystem services they supply.

Beekeeper stewardship, colony loss, and Varroa destructor management

Varroa (Varroa destructor) is a leading cause of honey bee mortality worldwide. In a U.S. national survey of beekeepers, 3519 respondents noted what they believe are the advantages and disadvantages of managing for Varroa, what good stewardship means in beekeeping, and whether they treated for Varroa. Dominant attitudes were keeping bees healthy, minimizing disturbance, and monitoring hives. We found a bifurcation in Varroa management beliefs. Decision tree analyses show group distinctions. Treatment Skeptics tend to say that stewardship means bees should not be disturbed or subjected to chemicals, and should be given forage to do their 'normal business.' This group was less likely to treat for Varroa. Treatment Adherents identify themselves as bee stewards and say stewardship means active hive management and keeping bees healthy and alive. Illuminating beekeeper stewardship is essential for a socioecological understanding of how to address challenging Varroa management and complex human-environmental production systems that have landscape-level effects.

Pesticides and pollinators: A socioecological synthesis

The relationship between pesticides and pollinators, while attracting no shortage of attention from scientists, regulators, and the public, has proven resistant to scientific synthesis and fractious in matters of policy and public opinion. This is in part because the issue has been approached in a compartmentalized and intradisciplinary way, such that evaluations of organismal pesticide effects remain largely disjoint from their upstream drivers and downstream consequences. Here, we present a socioecological framework designed to synthesize the pesticide-pollinator system and inform future scholarship and action. Our framework consists of three interlocking domains-pesticide use, pesticide exposure, and pesticide effects-each consisting of causally linked patterns, processes, and states. We elaborate each of these domains and their linkages, reviewing relevant literature and providing empirical case studies. We then propose guidelines for future pesticide-pollinator scholarship and action agenda aimed at strengthening knowledge in neglected domains and integrating knowledge across domains to provide decision support for stakeholders and policymakers. Specifically, we emphasize (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) mechanistic study of pesticide exposure, (3) understanding the propagation of pesticide effects across levels of organization, and (4) full-cost accounting of the externalities of pesticide use and regulation. Addressing these items will require transdisciplinary collaborations within and beyond the scientific community, including the expertise of farmers, agrochemical developers, and policymakers in an extended peer community.

Are organosilicon surfactants safe for bees or humans?

Organosilicon surfactants are the most potent adjuvants available for formulating and applying agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, household cleaning and personal care products, dental impressions and medicines. Risk assessment of pesticides, drugs or personal care products that takes into account only active ingredients without the other formulation ingredients and adjuvants commonly used in their application will miss important toxicity outcomes detrimental to non-target species including pollinators and humans. Over a billion pounds of organosilicon surfactants from all uses are produced globally per year, making this a major component of the chemical landscape to which bees and humans are exposed. These silicones, like most "inerts", are generally recognized as safe, have no mandated tolerances, and their residues are largely unmonitored. Lack of their public disclosure and adequate analytical methods constrains evaluation of their risk. Organosilicon surfactants, the most super-spreading and -penetrating adjuvants available, at relevant exposure levels impair honey bee learning, are acutely toxic, and in combination with bee viruses cause synergistic mortality. Organosilicon surfactants need to be regulated as a separate class of "inerts" from the more common silicones. In turn, impacts of organosilicon surfactant exposures on humans need to be evaluated. Silicones in their great diversity probably represent the single most ubiquitous environmental class of global synthetic pollutants. Do honey bees, a model environmental indicator organism, forewarn of hidden risks to humans of ubiquitous silicone exposures?

Gut microbiota composition is associated with environmental landscape in honey bees

There is growing recognition that the gut microbial community regulates a wide variety of important functions in its animal hosts, including host health. However, the complex interactions between gut microbes and environment are still unclear. Honey bees are ecologically and economically important pollinators that host a core gut microbial community that is thought to be constant across populations. Here, we examined whether the composition of the gut microbial community of honey bees is affected by the environmental landscape the bees are exposed to. We placed honey bee colonies reared under identical conditions in two main landscape types for 6 weeks: either oilseed rape farmland or agricultural farmland distant to fields of flowering oilseed rape. The gut bacterial communities of adult bees from the colonies were then characterized and compared based on amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. While previous studies have delineated a characteristic core set of bacteria inhabiting the honey bee gut, our results suggest that the broad environment that bees are exposed to has some influence on the relative abundance of some members of that microbial community. This includes known dominant taxa thought to have functions in nutrition and health. Our results provide evidence for an influence of landscape exposure on honey bee microbial community and highlight the potential effect of exposure to different environmental parameters, such as forage type and neonicotinoid pesticides, on key honey bee gut bacteria. This work emphasizes the complexity of the relationship between the host, its gut bacteria, and the environment and identifies target microbial taxa for functional analyses.

Toxicological Risks of Agrochemical Spray Adjuvants: Organosilicone Surfactants May Not Be Safe

Agrochemical risk assessment that takes into account only pesticide active ingredients without the spray adjuvants commonly used in their application will miss important toxicity outcomes detrimental to non-target species, including humans. Lack of disclosure of adjuvant and formulation ingredients coupled with a lack of adequate analytical methods constrains the assessment of total chemical load on beneficial organisms and the environment. Adjuvants generally enhance the pesticidal efficacy and inadvertently the non-target effects of the active ingredient. Spray adjuvants are largely assumed to be biologically inert and are not registered by the USA EPA, leaving their regulation and monitoring to individual states. Organosilicone surfactants are the most potent adjuvants and super-penetrants available to growers. Based on the data for agrochemical applications to almonds from California Department of Pesticide Regulation, there has been increasing use of adjuvants, particularly organosilicone surfactants, during bloom when two-thirds of USA honey bee colonies are present. Increased tank mixing of these with ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors and other fungicides and with insect growth regulator insecticides may be associated with recent USA honey bee declines. This database archives every application of a spray tank adjuvant with detail that is unprecedented globally. Organosilicone surfactants are good stand alone pesticides, toxic to bees, and are also present in drug and personal care products, particularly shampoos, and thus represent an important component of the chemical landscape to which pollinators and humans are exposed. This mini review is the first to possibly link spray adjuvant use with declining health of honey bee populations.

Neonicotinoid Residues in Wildflowers, a Potential Route of Chronic Exposure for Bees

In recent years, an intense debate about the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoids, a group of widely used, neurotoxic insecticides, has been joined. When these systemic compounds are applied to seeds, low concentrations are subsequently found in the nectar and pollen of the crop, which are then collected and consumed by bees. Here we demonstrate that the current focus on exposure to pesticides via the crop overlooks an important factor: throughout spring and summer, mixtures of neonicotinoids are also found in the pollen and nectar of wildflowers growing in arable field margins, at concentrations that are sometimes even higher than those found in the crop. Indeed, the large majority (97%) of neonicotinoids brought back in pollen to honey bee hives in arable landscapes was from wildflowers, not crops. Both previous and ongoing field studies have been based on the premise that exposure to neonicotinoids would occur only during the blooming period of flowering crops and that it may be diluted by bees also foraging on untreated wildflowers. Here, we show that exposure is likely to be higher and more prolonged than currently recognized because of widespread contamination of wild plants growing near treated crops.