Insecticides systémiques : de nouveaux risques pour les insectes pollinisateurs

Pesticides and pollinator brain: How do neonicotinoids affect the central nervous system of bees?

Neonicotinoids represent over a quarter of the global pesticide market. Research on their environmental impact has revealed their adverse effect on the cognitive functions of pollinators, in particular of bees. Cognitive impairments, mostly revealed by behavioural studies, are the phenotypic expression of an alteration in the underlying neural circuits, a matter deserving greater attention. Here, we reviewed studies on the impact of field-relevant doses of neonicotinoids on the neurophysiology and neurodevelopment of bees. In particular, we focus on their olfactory system as much knowledge has been gained on the different brain areas that participate in odour processing. Recent studies have revealed the detrimental effects of neonicotinoids at multiple levels of the olfactory system, including modulation of odorant-induced activity in olfactory sensory neurons, diminished neural responses in the antennal lobe (the first olfactory processing centre) and abnormal development of the neural connectivity within the mushroom bodies (central neuropils involved in multisensory integration, learning and memory storage, among others). Given the importance of olfactory perception for multiple aspects of bee biology, the reported disruption of the olfactory circuit, which can occur even upon exposure to sublethal doses of neonicotinoids, has severe consequences at both individual and colony levels. Moreover, the effects reported for a multimodal structure such as the mushroom bodies indicate that neonicotinoids' impact translates to other sensory domains. Assessing the impact of field-relevant doses of pesticides on bee neurophysiology is crucial for understanding how neonicotinoids influence their behaviour in ecological contexts and for defining effective and sustainable agricultural practices.

Pesticide mixtures detected in crop and non-target wild plant pollen and nectar

Cultivation of mass flowering entomophilous crops benefits from the presence of managed and wild pollinators, who visit flowers to forage on pollen and nectar. However, management of these crops typically includes application of pesticides, the presence of which may pose a hazard for pollinators foraging in an agricultural environment. To determine the levels of potential exposure to pesticides, their presence and concentration in pollen and nectar need assessing, both within and beyond the target crop plants. We selected ten pesticide compounds and one metabolite and analysed their occurrence in a crop (Brassica napus) and a wild plant (Rubus fruticosus agg.), which was flowering in field edges. Nectar and pollen from both plants were collected from five spring and five winter sown B. napus fields in Ireland, and were tested for pesticide residues, using QuEChERS and Liquid Chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Pesticide residues were detected in plant pollen and nectar of both plants. Most detections were from fields with no recorded application of the respective compounds in that year, but higher concentrations were observed in recently treated fields. Overall, more residues were detected in B. napus pollen and nectar than in the wild plant, and B. napus pollen had the highest mean concentration of residues. All matrices were contaminated with at least three compounds, and the most frequently detected compounds were fungicides. The most common compound mixture was comprised of the fungicides azoxystrobin, boscalid, and the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin, which was not recently applied on the fields. Our results indicate that persistent compounds like the neonicotinoids, should be continuously monitored for their presence and fate in the field environment. The toxicological evaluation of the compound mixtures identified in the present study should be performed, to determine their impacts on foraging insects that may be exposed to them.

Neonicotinoid-Coated Zea mays Seeds Indirectly Affect Honeybee Performance and Pathogen Susceptibility in Field Trials

Thirty-two honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies were studied in order to detect and measure potential in vivo effects of neonicotinoid pesticides used in cornfields (Zea mays spp) on honeybee health. Honeybee colonies were randomly split on four different agricultural cornfield areas located near Quebec City, Canada. Two locations contained cornfields treated with a seed-coated systemic neonicotinoid insecticide while the two others were organic cornfields used as control treatments. Hives were extensively monitored for their performance and health traits over a period of two years. Honeybee viruses (brood queen cell virus BQCV, deformed wing virus DWV, and Israeli acute paralysis virus IAPV) and the brain specific expression of a biomarker of host physiological stress, the Acetylcholinesterase gene AChE, were investigated using RT-qPCR. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) was performed to detect pesticide residues in adult bees, honey, pollen, and corn flowers collected from the studied hives in each location. In addition, general hive conditions were assessed by monitoring colony weight and brood development. Neonicotinoids were only identified in corn flowers at low concentrations. However, honeybee colonies located in neonicotinoid treated cornfields expressed significantly higher pathogen infection than those located in untreated cornfields. AChE levels showed elevated levels among honeybees that collected corn pollen from treated fields. Positive correlations were recorded between pathogens and the treated locations. Our data suggests that neonicotinoids indirectly weaken honeybee health by inducing physiological stress and increasing pathogen loads.

Assessment of chronic sublethal effects of imidacloprid on honey bee colony health

Here we present results of a three-year study to determine the fate of imidacloprid residues in hive matrices and to assess chronic sublethal effects on whole honey bee colonies fed supplemental pollen diet containing imidacloprid at 5, 20 and 100 μg/kg over multiple brood cycles. Various endpoints of colony performance and foraging behavior were measured during and after exposure, including winter survival. Imidacloprid residues became diluted or non-detectable within colonies due to the processing of beebread and honey and the rapid metabolism of the chemical. Imidacloprid exposure doses up to 100 μg/kg had no significant effects on foraging activity or other colony performance indicators during and shortly after exposure. Diseases and pest species did not affect colony health but infestations of Varroa mites were significantly higher in exposed colonies. Honey stores indicated that exposed colonies may have avoided the contaminated food. Imidacloprid dose effects was delayed later in the summer, when colonies exposed to 20 and 100 μg/kg experienced higher rates of queen failure and broodless periods, which led to weaker colonies going into the winter. Pooled over two years, winter survival of colonies averaged 85.7, 72.4, 61.2 and 59.2% in the control, 5, 20 and 100 μg/kg treatment groups, respectively. Analysis of colony survival data showed a significant dose effect, and all contrast tests comparing survival between control and treatment groups were significant, except for colonies exposed to 5 μg/kg. Given the weight of evidence, chronic exposure to imidacloprid at the higher range of field doses (20 to 100 μg/kg) in pollen of certain treated crops could cause negative impacts on honey bee colony health and reduced overwintering success, but the most likely encountered high range of field doses relevant for seed-treated crops (5 μg/kg) had negligible effects on colony health and are unlikely a sole cause of colony declines.

Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment

Neonicotinoid insecticides are successfully applied to control pests in a variety of agricultural crops; however, they may not only affect pest insects but also non-target organisms such as pollinators. This review summarizes, for the first time, 15 years of research on the hazards of neonicotinoids to bees including honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. The focus of the paper is on three different key aspects determining the risks of neonicotinoid field concentrations for bee populations: (1) the environmental neonicotinoid residue levels in plants, bees and bee products in relation to pesticide application, (2) the reported side-effects with special attention for sublethal effects, and (3) the usefulness for the evaluation of neonicotinoids of an already existing risk assessment scheme for systemic compounds. Although environmental residue levels of neonicotinoids were found to be lower than acute/chronic toxicity levels, there is still a lack of reliable data as most analyses were conducted near the detection limit and for only few crops. Many laboratory studies described lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on the foraging behavior, and learning and memory abilities of bees, while no effects were observed in field studies at field-realistic dosages. The proposed risk assessment scheme for systemic compounds was shown to be applicable to assess the risk for side-effects of neonicotinoids as it considers the effect on different life stages and different levels of biological organization (organism versus colony). Future research studies should be conducted with field-realistic concentrations, relevant exposure and evaluation durations. Molecular markers may be used to improve risk assessment by a better understanding of the mode of action (interaction with receptors) of neonicotinoids in bees leading to the identification of environmentally safer compounds.

New risk assessment approach for systemic insecticides: the case of honey bees and imidacloprid (Gaucho)

The procedure to assess the risk posed by systemic insecticides to honey bees follows the European Directives and depends on the determination of the Hazard Quotient (HQ), though this parameter is not adapted to these molecules. This paper describes a new approach to assess more specifically the risk posed by systemic insecticides to honey bees with the example of imidacloprid (Gaucho). This approach is based on the new and existing chemical substances Directive in which levels of exposure (PEC, Predicted Exposure Concentration) and toxicity (PNEC, Predicted No Effect Concentration) are compared. PECs are determined for different categories of honey bees in relation to the amounts of contaminated pollen and nectar they might consume. PNECs are calculated from data on acute, chronic, and sublethal toxicities of imidacloprid to honey bees, to which selected assessment factors are applied. Results highlight a risk for all categories of honey bees, in particular for hive bees. These data are discussed in the light of field observations made on honey bee mortalities and disappearances. New perspectives are given to better determine the risk posed by systemic insecticides to honey bees.

Quantification of imidacloprid uptake in maize crops

The systemic imidacloprid is one of the most used insecticides in the world for field and horticultural crops. This neurotoxicant is often used as seed-dressing, especially for maize, sunflower, and rape. Using a LC/MS/MS technique (LOQ = 1 microg/kg and LOD = 0.1 microg/kg), the presence of imidacloprid has been measured in maize from field samples at the time of pollen shed, from less than 0.1 microg/kg up to 33.6 microg/kg. Numerous random samples were collected throughout France from 2000 to 2003. The average levels of imidacloprid measured are 4.1 microg/kg in stems and leaves, 6.6 microg/kg in male flowers (panicles), and 2.1 microg/kg in pollen. These values are similar to those found previously in sunflower and rape. These results permit evaluation of the risk to honeybees by using the PEC/PNEC ratios (probable exposition concentrations/predicted no effect concentration). PEC/PNEC risk ratios were determined and ranged between 500 and 600 for honeybees foraging on maize treated with imidacloprid by seed dressing. Such a high risk factor can be related to one of the main causes of honeybee colony losses.

Prevalence and seasonal variations of six bee viruses in Apis mellifera L. and Varroa destructor mite populations in France

A survey of six bee viruses on a large geographic scale was undertaken by using seemingly healthy bee colonies and the PCR technique. Samples of adult bees and pupae were collected from 36 apiaries in the spring, summer, and autumn during 2002. Varroa destructor samples were collected at the end of summer following acaricide treatment. In adult bees, during the year deformed wing virus (DWV) was found at least once in 97% of the apiaries, sacbrood virus (SBV) was found in 86% of the apiaries, chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV) was found in 28% of the apiaries, acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) was found in 58% of the apiaries, black queen cell virus (BQCV) was found in 86% of the apiaries, and Kashmir bee virus (KBV) was found in 17% of the apiaries. For pupae, the following frequencies were obtained: DWV, 94% of the apiaries; SBV, 80% of the apiaries; CBPV, none of the apiaries; ABPV, 23% of the apiaries; BQCV, 23% of the apiaries; and KBV, 6% of the apiaries. In Varroa samples, the following four viruses were identified: DWV (100% of the apiaries), SBV (45% of the apiaries), ABPV (36% of the apiaries), and KBV (5% of the apiaries). The latter findings support the putative role of mites in transmitting these viruses. Taken together, these data indicate that bee virus infections occur persistently in bee populations despite the lack of clinical signs, suggesting that colony disease outbreaks might result from environmental factors that lead to activation of viral replication in bees.