Co-formulant in a commercial fungicide product causes lethal and sub-lethal effects in bumble bees

Acute exposure to fungicide fluazinam induces cell death in the midgut, oxidative stress and alters behavior of the stingless bee Partamona helleri (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Meliponini) are pollinators of both cultivated and wild crop plants in the Neotropical region. However, they are susceptible to pesticide exposure during foraging activities. The fungicide fluazinam is commonly applied in bean and sunflower cultivation during the flowering period, posing a potential risk to the stingless bee Partamona helleri, which serves as a pollinator for these crops. In this study, we investigated the impact of acute oral exposure (24 h) fluazinam on the survival, morphology and cell death signaling pathways in the midgut, oxidative stress and behavior of P. helleri worker bees. Worker bees were exposed for 24 h to fluazinam (field concentrations 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5 mg a.i. mL-1), diluted in 50 % honey aqueous solution. After oral exposure, fluazinam did not harm the survival of worker bees. However, sublethal effects were revealed using the highest concentration of fluazinam (2.5 mg a.i. mL-1), particularly a reduction in food consumption, damage in the midgut epithelium, characterized by degeneration of the brush border, an increase in the number and size of cytoplasm vacuoles, condensation of nuclear chromatin, and an increase in the release of cell fragments into the gut lumen. Bees exposed to fluazinam exhibited an increase in cells undergoing autophagy and apoptosis, indicating cell death in the midgut epithelium. Furthermore, the fungicide induced oxidative stress as evidenced by an increase in total antioxidant and catalase enzyme activities, along with a decrease in glutathione S-transferase activity. And finally, fluazinam altered the walking behavior of bees, which could potentially impede their foraging activities. In conclusion, our findings indicate that fluazinam at field concentrations is not lethal for workers P. helleri. Nevertheless, it has side effects on midgut integrity, oxidative stress and worker bee behavior, pointing to potential risks for this pollinator.

Changes in the proteome of Apis mellifera acutely exposed to sublethal dosage of glyphosate and imidacloprid

Uncontrolled use of pesticides has caused a dramatic reduction in the number of pollinators, including bees. Studies on the effects of pesticides on bees have reported effects on both metabolic and neurological levels under chronic exposure. In this study, variations in the differential expression of head and thorax-abdomen proteins in Africanized A. mellifera bees treated acutely with sublethal doses of glyphosate and imidacloprid were studied using a proteomic approach. A total of 92 proteins were detected, 49 of which were differentially expressed compared to those in the control group (47 downregulated and 2 upregulated). Protein interaction networks with differential protein expression ratios suggested that acute exposure of A. mellifera to sublethal doses of glyphosate could cause head damage, which is mainly associated with behavior and metabolism. Simultaneously, imidacloprid can cause damage associated with metabolism as well as, neuronal damage, cellular stress, and impairment of the detoxification system. Regarding the thorax-abdomen fractions, glyphosate could lead to cytoskeleton reorganization and a reduction in defense mechanisms, whereas imidacloprid could affect the coordination and impairment of the oxidative stress response.

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.

Experimental Ecotoxicology Procedures Interfere with Honey Bee Life History

Apis mellifera was used as a model species for ecotoxicological testing. In the present study, we tested the effects of acetone (0.1% in feed), a solvent commonly used to dissolve pesticides, on bees exposed at different developmental stages (larval and/or adult). Moreover, we explored the potential effect of in vitro larval rearing, a commonly used technique for accurately monitoring worker exposure at the larval stage, by combining acetone exposure and treatment conditions (in vitro larval rearing vs. in vivo larval rearing). We then analyzed the life-history traits of the experimental bees using radio frequency identification technology over three sessions (May, June, and August) to assess the potential seasonal dependence of the solvent effects. Our results highlight the substantial influence of in vitro larval rearing on the life cycle of bees, with a 47.7% decrease in life span, a decrease of 0.9 days in the age at first exit, an increase of 57.3% in the loss rate at first exit, and a decrease of 40.6% in foraging tenure. We did not observe any effect of exposure to acetone at the larval stage on the capacities of bees reared in vitro. Conversely, acetone exposure at the adult stage reduced the bee life span by 21.8% to 60%, decreased the age at first exit by 1.12 to 4.34 days, and reduced the foraging tenure by 30% to 37.7%. Interestingly, we found a significant effect of season on acetone exposure, suggesting that interference with the life-history traits of honey bees is dependent on season. These findings suggest improved integration of long-term monitoring for assessing sublethal responses in bees following exposure to chemicals during both the larval and adult stages. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:1320-1331. © 2024 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Different Sensitivity of Flower-Visiting Diptera to a Neonicotinoid Insecticide: Expanding the Base for a Multiple-Species Risk Assessment Approach

Insects play an essential role as pollinators of wild flowers and crops. At the same time, pollinators in agricultural environments are commonly exposed to pesticides, compromising their survival and the provision of pollination services. Although pollinators include a wide range of species from several insect orders, information on pesticide sensitivity is mostly restricted to bees. In addition, the disparity of methodological procedures used for different insect groups hinders the comparison of toxicity data between bees and other pollinators. Dipterans are a highly diverse insect order that includes some important pollinators. Therefore, in this study, we assessed the sensitivity of two hoverflies (Sphaerophoria rueppellii, Eristalinus aeneus) and one tachinid fly (Exorista larvarum) to a neonicotinoid insecticide (Confidor®, imidacloprid) following a comparative approach. We adapted the standardized methodology of acute contact exposure in honey bees to build dose-response curves and calculate median lethal doses (LD50) for the three species. The methodology consisted in applying 1 µL of the test solution on the thorax of each insect. Sphaerophoria rueppelli was the most sensitive species (LD50 = 10.23 ng/insect), and E. aeneus (LD50 = 18,176 ng/insect) the least. We then compared our results with those available in the literature for other pollinator species using species sensitivity distribution (SSD). Based on the SSD curve, the 95th percentile of pollinator species would be protected by a safety factor of 100 times the Apis mellifera endpoint. Overall, dipterans were less sensitive to imidacloprid than most bee species. As opposed to most bee species, oviposition and fecundity of many dipteran species can be reliably assessed in the laboratory. We measured the number of eggs laid following exposure to different insecticide doses and assessed the potential trade-off between oviposition and survival through the sublethal sensitivity index (SSI). Exposure to imidacloprid had a significant effect on fecundity, and SSI values indicated that oviposition is a sensitive endpoint for the three dipteran species tested. Future studies should integrate this information related to population dynamics in simulation models for environmental risk assessment.

Evaluation of neurological behavior alterations and metabolic changes in mice under chronic glyphosate exposure

Glyphosate is a widely used active ingredient in agricultural herbicides, inhibiting the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids in plants by targeting their shikimate pathway. Our gut microbiota also facilitates the shikimate pathway, making it a vulnerable target when encountering glyphosate. Dysbiosis in the gut microbiota may impair the gut-brain axis, bringing neurological outcomes. To evaluate the neurotoxicity and biochemical changes attributed to glyphosate, we exposed mice with the reference dose (RfD) set by the U.S. EPA (1.75 mg/Kg-BW/day) and its hundred-time-equivalence (175 mg/Kg-BW/day) chronically via drinking water, then compared a series of neurobehaviors and their fecal/serum metabolomic profile against the non-exposed vehicles (n = 10/dosing group). There was little alteration in the neurobehavior, including motor activities, social approach, and conditioned fear, under glyphosate exposure. Metabolomic differences attributed to glyphosate were observed in the feces, corresponding to 68 and 29 identified metabolites with dysregulation in the higher and lower dose groups, respectively, compared to the vehicle-control. There were less alterations observed in the serum metabolome. Under 175 mg/Kg-BW/day of glyphosate exposure, the aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine) were reduced in the feces but not in the serum of mice. We further focused on how tryptophan metabolism was dysregulated based on the pathway analysis, and identified the indole-derivatives were more altered compared to the serotonin and kynurenine derivatives. Together, we obtained a three-dimensional data set that records neurobehavioral, fecal metabolic, and serum biomolecular dynamics caused by glyphosate exposure at two different doses. Our data showed that even under the high dose of glyphosate irrelevant to human exposure, there were little evidence that supported the impairment of the gut-brain axis.

Sub-lethal but potentially devastating - The novel insecticide flupyradifurone impairs collective brood care in bumblebees

The worldwide decline in pollinating insects is alarming. One of the main anthropogenic drivers is the massive use of pesticides in agriculture. Risk assessment procedures test pesticides for mortality rates of well-fed, parasite free individuals of a few non-target species. Sublethal and synergistic effects of co-occurring stressors are usually not addressed. Here, we present a simple, wildly applicable bio-essay to assess such effects. Using brood thermoregulation in bumblebee microcolonies as readout, we investigate how this collective ability is affected by long-term feeding exposure to the herbicide glyphosate (5 mg/l), the insecticide flupyradifurone (0.4 mg/l) and the combination of both, when co-occurring with the natural stressor of resource limitation. Documenting brood temperature and development in 53 microcolonies we find no significant effect of glyphosate, while flupyradifurone significantly impaired the collective ability to maintain the necessary brood temperatures, resulting in prolonged developmental times and a decrease in colony growth by over 50 %. This reduction in colony growth has the potential to significantly curtail the reproductive chances of colonies in the field. Our findings highlight the potentially devastating consequences of flupyradifurone use in agriculture even at sub-lethal doses and underline the urgent need for improved risk assessment procedures.

'Inert' co-formulants of a fungicide mediate acute effects on honey bee learning performance

Managed honey bees have experienced high rates of colony loss recently, with pesticide exposure as a major cause. While pesticides can be lethal at high doses, lower doses can produce sublethal effects, which may substantially weaken colonies. Impaired learning performance is a behavioral sublethal effect, and is often present in bees exposed to insecticides. However, the effects of other pesticides (such as fungicides) on honey bee learning are understudied, as are the effects of pesticide formulations versus active ingredients. Here, we investigated the effects of acute exposure to the fungicide formulation Pristine (active ingredients: 25.2% boscalid, 12.8% pyraclostrobin) on honey bee olfactory learning performance in the proboscis extension reflex (PER) assay. We also exposed a subset of bees to only the active ingredients to test which formulation component(s) were driving the learning effects. We found that the formulation produced negative effects on memory, but this effect was not present in bees fed only boscalid and pyraclostrobin. This suggests that the trade secret "other ingredients" in the formulation mediated the learning effects, either through exerting their own toxic effects or by increasing the toxicities of the active ingredients. These results show that pesticide co-formulants should not be assumed inert and should instead be included when assessing pesticide risks.

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.

Moving past neonicotinoids and honeybees: A systematic review of existing research on other insecticides and bees

Synthetic pesticides (e.g. herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) are used widely in agriculture to protect crops from pests, weeds and disease. However, their use also comes with a range of environmental concerns. One key concern is the effect of insecticides on non-target organisms such as bees, who provide pollination services for crops and wild plants. This systematic literature review quantifies the existing research on bees and insecticides broadly, and then focuses more specifically on non-neonicotinoid insecticides and non-honeybees. We find that articles on honeybees (Apis sp.) and insecticides account for 80% of all research, with all other bees combined making up 20%. Neonicotinoids were studied in 34% of articles across all bees and were the most widely studied insecticide class for non-honeybees overall, with almost three times as many studies than the second most studied class. Of non-neonicotinoid insecticide classes and non-honeybees, the most studied were pyrethroids and organophosphates followed by carbamates, and the most widely represented bee taxa were bumblebees (Bombus), followed by leaf-cutter bees (Megachile) and mason bees (Osmia). Research has taken place across several countries, with the highest numbers of articles from Brazil and the US, and with notable gaps from countries in Asia, Africa and Oceania. Mortality was the most studied effect type, while sub-lethal effects such as on behaviour were less studied. Few studies tested how the effect of insecticides were influenced by multiple pressures, such as climate change and co-occurring pesticides (cocktail effects). As anthropogenic pressures do not occur in isolation, we suggest that future research also addresses these knowledge gaps. Given the changing global patterns in insecticide use, and the increasing inclusion of both non-honeybees and sub-lethal effects in pesticide risk assessment, there is a need for expanding research beyond its current state to ensure a strong scientific evidence base for the development of risk assessment and associated policy.

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.

Fungicides and strawberry pollination-Effects on floral scent, pollen attributes and bumblebee behavior

Fungicides are used in agriculture to protect crops from various fungal diseases. However, they may modulate the plants metabolism. Moreover, fungicides can accumulate in the environment and may cause toxic effects on non-target organisms such as nectar microbes and pollinators. Nectar microbes contribute to the volatile profile of flowers and can influence pollinators behaviour. Thus, fungicide treatment could potentially affect the pollination. In this study, we investigated the influence of fungicide treatment on floral attributes as well as the behavioural impact on bumblebees. In separate experiments, we used one or both strawberry cultivars (Fragaria × ananassa var. Darselect and Malwina), which were either kept untreated (control) or treated with either Cuprozin® progress or SWITCH® fungicide. We analysed various flower traits including volatiles, pollen weight, pollen protein, and the attraction of bumblebees towards the flowers in the greenhouse. Additionally, we analysed the viability of pollen and pollen live-to-dead ratio, as well as the composition of nectar fungi in the field. A treatment with Cuprozin® progress led to a lower emission of floral volatiles and a slightly lower pollen protein content. This had no impact on the visit latency of bumblebees but on the overall visit frequency of these flowers. The treatment with the fungicide SWITCH® resulted in a higher emission of floral volatiles as well as a delayed first visit by bumblebees. Furthermore, flowers of control plants were visited more often than those treated with the two fungicides. Plant-pollinator interactions are highly complex, with many contributing factors. Fungicides can have an impact on the pollen quality and pollinator attraction, potentially leading to an altered pollen dispersal by pollinators and a change in fruit quality.

Pesticide contamination in an intensive insect predator of honey bees

Pesticides used for plant protection can indirectly affect target and non-target organisms and are identified as a major cause of insect decline. Depending on species interactions, pesticides can be transferred into the environment from plants to preys and predators. While the transfer of pesticides is often studied through vertebrate and aquatic exposure, arthropod predators of insects may represent valuable bioindicators of environmental exposure to pesticides. A modified QuEChERS extraction coupled with HPLC-MS/MS analysis was used to address the question of the exposure to pesticides of the invasive hornet Vespa velutina, a specialist predator of honey bees. This analytical method allows the accurate quantification of nanogram/gram levels of 42 contaminants in a sample weight that can be obtained from single individuals. Pesticide residues were analyzed in female workers from 24 different hornet nests and 13 different pesticides and 1 synergist, piperonyl butoxide, were identified and quantified. In 75 % of the explored nests, we found at least one compound and in 53 % of the positive samples we could quantify residues ranging from 0.5 to 19.5 ng.g^-1. In this study, hornets from nests located in sub-urban environments were the most contaminated. Pesticide residue analysis in small and easy to collect predatory insects opens new perspectives for the study of environmental contamination and the transfer of pesticides in terrestrial trophic chains.

Oral exposure to thiacloprid-based pesticide (Calypso SC480) causes physical poisoning symptoms and impairs the cognitive abilities of bumble bees

BACKGROUND

Pesticides are identified as one of the major reasons for the global pollinator decline. However, the sublethal effects of pesticide residue levels found in pollen and nectar on pollinators have been studied little. The aim of our research was to study whether oral exposure to the thiacloprid levels found in pollen and nectar affect the learning and long-term memory of bumble bees. We tested the effects of two exposure levels of thiacloprid-based pesticide (Calypso SC480) on buff-tailed bumble bee (Bombus terrestris) in laboratory utilizing a learning performance and memory tasks designed to be difficult enough to reveal large variations across the individuals.

RESULTS

The lower exposure level of the thiacloprid-based pesticide impaired the bees' learning performance but not long-term memory compared to the untreated controls. The higher exposure level caused severe acute symptoms, due to which we were not able to test the learning and memory.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that oral exposure to a thiacloprid-based pesticide, calculated based on residue levels found in pollen and nectar, not only causes sublethal effects but also acute lethal effects on bumble bees. Our study underlines an urgent demand for better understanding of pesticide residues in the environment, and of the effects of those residue levels on pollinators. These findings fill the gap in the existing knowledge and help the scientific community and policymakers to enhance the sustainable use of pesticides.

Contrasting effects of fungicide and herbicide active ingredients and their formulations on bumblebee learning and behaviour

Fungicides and herbicides are two of the most heavily applied pesticide classes in the world, but receive little research attention with regards to their potential impacts on bees. As they are not designed to target insects, the mechanisms behind potential impacts of these pesticides are unclear. It is therefore important to understand their influence at a range of levels, including sublethal impacts on behaviours such as learning. We used the proboscis extension reflex (PER) paradigm to assess how the herbicide glyphosate and the fungicide prothioconazole affect bumblebee olfactory learning. We also assessed responsiveness, and compared the impacts of these active ingredients and their respective commercial formulations (Roundup Biactive and Proline). We found that learning was not impaired by either formulation but, of the bees that displayed evidence of learning, exposure to prothioconazole active ingredient increased learning level in some situations, while exposure to glyphosate active ingredient resulted in bumblebees being less likely to respond to antennal stimulation with sucrose. Our data suggest that fungicides and herbicides may not negatively impact olfactory learning ability when bumblebees are exposed orally to field-realistic doses in a lab setting, but that glyphosate has the potential to cause changes in responsiveness in bees. As we found impacts of active ingredients and not commercial formulations, this suggests that co-formulants may modify impacts of active ingredients in the products tested on olfactory learning without being toxic themselves. More research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind potential impacts of fungicides and herbicides on bees, and to evaluate the implications of behavioural changes caused by glyphosate and prothioconazole for bumblebee fitness.

Parasite and Pesticide Impacts on the Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) Haemolymph Proteome

Pesticides pose a potential threat to bee health, especially in combination with other stressors, such as parasites. However, pesticide risk assessment tests pesticides in isolation from other stresses, i.e., on otherwise healthy bees. Through molecular analysis, the specific impacts of a pesticide or its interaction with another stressor can be elucidated. Molecular mass profiling by MALDI BeeTyping® was used on bee haemolymph to explore the signature of pesticidal and parasitic stressor impacts. This approach was complemented by bottom-up proteomics to investigate the modulation of the haemoproteome. We tested acute oral doses of three pesticides—glyphosate, Amistar and sulfoxaflor—on the bumblebee Bombus terrestris, alongside the gut parasite Crithidia bombi. We found no impact of any pesticide on parasite intensity and no impact of sulfoxaflor or glyphosate on survival or weight change. Amistar caused weight loss and 19–41% mortality. Haemoproteome analysis showed various protein dysregulations. The major pathways dysregulated were those involved in insect defences and immune responses, with Amistar having the strongest impact on these dysregulated pathways. Our results show that even when no response can be seen at a whole organism level, MALDI BeeTyping® can detect effects. Mass spectrometry analysis of bee haemolymph provides a pertinent tool to evaluate stressor impacts on bee health, even at the level of individuals.

The fungicide azoxystrobin causes histopathological and cytotoxic changes in the midgut of the honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Apis mellifera is an important bee pollinating native and crop plants but its recent population decline has been linked to the use of pesticides, including fungicides that have been commonly classified as safe for bees. However, many pesticides, in addition to direct mortality cause sublethal effects, including damage to target selective honey bee organs. The midgut is the organ responsible for the digestion and absorption of nutrients and the detoxification of ingested substances, such as pesticides. This study evaluated the histopathological and cytotoxic changes in the midgut of A. mellifera workers caused by the pesticide azoxystrobin. The limit-test was performed, and a 100 µg a.i./bee dose was administered orally and midgut analyzed with light and transmission electron microscopies after 24 h and 48 h of pesticide exposure. The midgut of the control bees has a single layer of digestive cells, with spherical nuclei, nests of regenerative cells, and the lumen coated with the peritrophic matrix. The bees fed on azoxystrobin showed morphological changes, including intense cytoplasm vacuolization and cell fragments released into the gut lumen. The protein detection test showed greater staining intensity in the nests of regenerative cells after 24 h of exposure to azoxystrobin. The occurrence of damage to the midgut in A. mellifera exposed to azoxystrobin indicates that although this fungicide has been classified as low toxicity for bees, it has sublethal effects in the midgut, and effects in other organs should be investigated.

Wild bees are exposed to low levels of pesticides in urban grasslands and community gardens

Globally documented wild bee declines threaten sustainable food production and natural ecosystem functioning. Urban environments are often florally abundant, and consequently can contain high levels of pollinator diversity compared with agricultural environments. This has led to the suggestion that urban environments are an increasingly important habitat for pollinators. However, pesticides, such as commercial bug sprays, have a range of lethal and sub-lethal impacts on bees and are widely available for public use, with past work indicating that managed bees (honeybees and bumblebees) are exposed to a range of pesticides in urban environments. Despite this, we still have a poor understanding of (i) whether wild bees foraging in urban environments are exposed to pesticides and (ii) if exposure differs between genera. Here we assessed pesticide exposure in 8 bee genera foraging across multiple urban landscapes. We detected 13 different pesticides, some at concentrations known to have sub-lethal impacts on pollinators. Both the likelihood of pesticides being detected, and the concentrations observed, were higher for larger bees, likely due to their greater foraging ranges. Our results suggest that restricting agrochemical use in urban environments, where the economic benefits are limited, is a simple way to reduce anthropogenic stress on wild bees.

Enzyme Inhibition-Based Assay to Estimate the Contribution of Formulants to the Effect of Commercial Pesticide Formulations

Pesticides can affect the health of individual organisms and the function of the entire ecosystem. Therefore, thorough assessment of the risks associated with the use of pesticides is a high-priority task. An enzyme inhibition-based assay is used in this study as a convenient and quick tool to study the effects of pesticides at the molecular level. The contribution of formulants to toxicological properties of the pesticide formulations has been studied by analyzing effects of 7 active ingredients of pesticides (AIas) and 10 commercial formulations based on them (AIfs) on the function of a wide range of enzyme assay systems differing in complexity (single-, coupled, and three-enzyme assay systems). Results have been compared with the effects of AIas and AIfs on bioluminescence of the luminous bacterium Photobacterium phosphoreum. Mostly, AIfs produce a considerably stronger inhibitory effect on the activity of enzyme assay systems and bioluminescence of the luminous bacterium than AIas, which confirms the contribution of formulants to toxicological properties of the pesticide formulation. Results of the current study demonstrate that "inert" ingredients are not ecotoxicologically safe and can considerably augment the inhibitory effect of pesticide formulations; therefore, their use should be controlled more strictly. Circular dichroism and fluorescence spectra of the enzymes used for assays do not show any changes in the protein structure in the presence of commercial pesticide formulations during the assay procedure. This finding suggests that pesticides produce the inhibitory effect on enzymes through other mechanisms.

Field-realistic acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide impairs fine-color discrimination in bumblebees

Pollinator decline is a grave challenge worldwide. One of the main culprits for this decline is the widespread use of, and pollinators' chronic exposure to, agrochemicals. Here, we examined the effect of a field-realistic dose of the world's most commonly used pesticide, glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH), on bumblebee cognition. We experimentally tested bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) color and scent discrimination using acute GBH exposure, approximating a field-realistic dose from a day's foraging in a patch recently sprayed with GBH. In a 10-color discrimination experiment with five learning bouts, GBH treated bumblebees' learning rate fell to zero by third learning bout, whereas the control bees increased their performance in the last two bouts. In the memory test, the GBH treated bumblebees performed to near chance level, indicating that they had lost everything they had learned during the learning bouts, while the control bees were performing close to the level in their last learning bout. However, GBH did not affect bees' learning in a 2-color or 10-odor discrimination experiment, which suggests that the impact is limited to fine color learning and does not necessarily generalize to less specific tasks or other modalities. These results indicate that the widely used pesticide damages bumblebees' fine-color discrimination, which is essential to the pollinator's individual success and to colony fitness in complex foraging environments. Hence, our study suggests that acute sublethal exposure to GBH poses a greater threat to pollination-based ecosystem services than previously thought, and that tests for learning and memory should be integrated into pesticide risk assessment.

Ecological Drivers and Consequences of Bumble Bee Body Size Variation

Body size is arguably one of the most important traits influencing the physiology and ecology of animals. Shifts in animal body size have been observed in response to climate change, including in bumble bees (Bombus spp. [Hymenoptera: Apidae]). Bumble bee size shifts have occurred concurrently with the precipitous population declines of several species, which appear to be related, in part, to their size. Body size variation is central to the ecology of bumble bees, from their social organization to the pollination services they provide to plants. If bumble bee size is shifted or constrained, there may be consequences for the pollination services they provide and for our ability to predict their responses to global change. Yet, there are still many aspects of the breadth and role of bumble bee body size variation that require more study. To this end, we review the current evidence of the ecological drivers of size variation in bumble bees and the consequences of that variation on bumble bee fitness, foraging, and species interactions. In total we review: (1) the proximate determinants and physiological consequences of size variation in bumble bees; (2) the environmental drivers and ecological consequences of size variation; and (3) synthesize our understanding of size variation in predicting how bumble bees will respond to future changes in climate and land use. As global change intensifies, a better understanding of the factors influencing the size distributions of bumble bees, and the consequences of those distributions, will allow us to better predict future responses of these pollinators.

Toxicological Comparison of Pesticide Active Substances Approved for Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture in Europe

There is much debate about whether the (mostly synthetic) pesticide active substances (AS) in conventional agriculture have different non-target effects than the natural AS in organic agriculture. We evaluated the official EU pesticide database to compare 256 AS that may only be used on conventional farmland with 134 AS that are permitted on organic farmland. As a benchmark, we used (i) the hazard classifications of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS), and (ii) the dietary and occupational health-based guidance values, which were established in the authorization procedure. Our comparison showed that 55% of the AS used only in conventional agriculture contained health or environmental hazard statements, but only 3% did of the AS authorized for organic agriculture. Warnings about possible harm to the unborn child, suspected carcinogenicity, or acute lethal effects were found in 16% of the AS used in conventional agriculture, but none were found in organic agriculture. Furthermore, the establishment of health-based guidance values for dietary and non-dietary exposures were relevant by the European authorities for 93% of conventional AS, but only for 7% of organic AS. We, therefore, encourage policies and strategies to reduce the use and risk of pesticides, and to strengthen organic farming in order to protect biodiversity and maintain food security.

Nutritional stress exacerbates impact of a novel insecticide on solitary bees' behaviour, reproduction and survival

Pesticide exposure and food stress are major threats to bees, but their potential synergistic impacts under field-realistic conditions remain poorly understood and are not considered in current pesticide risk assessments. We conducted a semi-field experiment to examine the single and interactive effects of the novel insecticide flupyradifurone (FPF) and nutritional stress on fitness proxies in the solitary bee Osmia bicornis. Individually marked bees were released into flight cages with monocultures of buckwheat, wild mustard or purple tansy, which were assigned to an insecticide treatment (FPF or control) in a crossed design. Nutritional stress, which was high in bees foraging on buckwheat, intermediate on wild mustard and low on purple tansy, modulated the impact of insecticide exposure. Within the first day after application of FPF, mortality of bees feeding on buckwheat was 29 times higher compared with control treatments, while mortality of FPF exposed and control bees was similar in the other two plant species. Moreover, we found negative synergistic impacts of FPF and nutritional stress on offspring production, flight activity, flight duration and flower visitation frequency. These results reveal that environmental policies and risk assessment schemes that ignore interactions among anthropogenic stressors will fail to adequately protect bees and the pollination services they provide.

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.

Flowering resources modulate the sensitivity of bumblebees to a common fungicide

Bees are exposed to various stressors, including pesticides and lack of flowering resources. Despite potential interactions between these stressors, the impacts of pesticides on bees are generally assumed to be consistent across bee-attractive crops, and regulatory risk assessments of pesticides neglect interactions with flowering resources. Furthermore, impacts of fungicides on bees are rarely examined in peer-reviewed studies, although these are often the pesticides that bees are most exposed to. In a full-factorial semi-field experiment with 39 large flight cages, we assessed the single and combined impacts of the globally used azoxystrobin-based fungicide Amistar® and three types of flowering resources (Phacelia, buckwheat, and a floral mix) on Bombus terrestris colonies. Although Amistar is classified as bee-safe, Amistar exposure through Phacelia monocultures reduced adult worker body mass and colony growth (including a 55% decline in workers and an 88% decline in males), while the fungicide had no impact on colonies in buckwheat or the floral mix cages. Furthermore, buckwheat monocultures hampered survival and fecundity irrespective of fungicide exposure. This shows that bumblebees require access to complementary flowering species to gain both fitness and fungicide tolerance and that Amistar impacts are flowering resource-dependent. Our findings call for further research on how different flowering plants affect bees and their pesticide tolerance to improve guidelines for regulatory pesticide risk assessments and inform the choice of plants that are cultivated to safeguard pollinators.

A Brief Note on Pollinator Exposure to Co-Formulants and Adjuvants

Bees and other pollinators are exposed to co-formulants and adjuvants at very high levels in agriculture. Thorough, targeted, assessment of the toxicity of co-formulants and adjuvants is urgently required. Created with BioRender.com.

Glyphosate impairs collective thermoregulation in bumblebees

Insects are facing a multitude of anthropogenic stressors, and the recent decline in their biodiversity is threatening ecosystems and economies across the globe. We investigated the impact of glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide worldwide, on bumblebees. Bumblebee colonies maintain their brood at high temperatures via active thermogenesis, a prerequisite for colony growth and reproduction. Using a within-colony comparative approach to examine the effects of long-term glyphosate exposure on both individual and collective thermoregulation, we found that whereas effects are weak at the level of the individual, the collective ability to maintain the necessary high brood temperatures is decreased by more than 25% during periods of resource limitation. For pollinators in our heavily stressed ecosystems, glyphosate exposure carries hidden costs that have so far been largely overlooked.

No evidence for impaired solitary bee fitness following pre-flowering sulfoxaflor application alone or in combination with a common fungicide in a semi-field experiment

Pesticide exposure is considered a major driver of pollinator decline and the use of neonicotinoid insecticides has been restricted by regulatory authorities due to their risks for pollinators. Impacts of new alternative sulfoximine-based compounds on solitary bees and their potential interactive effects with other commonly applied pesticides in agriculture remain unclear. Here, we conducted a highly replicated full-factorial semi-field experiment with the solitary bee Osmia bicornis, an important pollinator of crops and wild plants in Europe, and Phacelia tanacetifolia as a model crop. We show that spray applications of the insecticide sulfoxaflor (product Closer) and the fungicide azoxystrobin (product Amistar), both alone and combined, had no significant negative impacts on adult female survival or the production, mortality, sex ratio and body size of offspring when sulfoxaflor was applied five days before crop flowering. Our results indicate that for O. bicornis (1) the risk of adverse impacts of sulfoxaflor (Closer) on fitness is small when applied at least five days before crop flowering and (2) that azoxystrobin (Amistar) has a low potential of exacerbating sulfoxaflor effects under field-realistic conditions.

'Inert' ingredients are understudied, potentially dangerous to bees and deserve more research attention

Agrochemical formulations are composed of two broad groups of chemicals: active ingredients, which confer pest control action, and 'inert' ingredients, which facilitate the action of the active ingredient. Most research into the effects of agrochemicals focusses on the effects of active ingredients. This reflects the assumption that 'inert' ingredients are non-toxic. A review of relevant research shows that for bees, this assumption is without empirical foundation. After conducting a systematic literature search, we found just 19 studies that tested the effects of 'inert' ingredients on bee health. In these studies, 'inert' ingredients were found to cause mortality in bees through multiple exposure routes, act synergistically with other stressors and cause colony level effects. This lack of research is compounded by a lack of diversity in study organism used. We argue that 'inert' ingredients have distinct, and poorly understood, ecological persistency profiles and toxicities, making research into their individual effects necessary. We highlight the lack of mitigation in place to protect bees from 'inert' ingredients and argue that research efforts should be redistributed to address the knowledge gap identified here. If so-called 'inert' ingredients are, in fact, detrimental to bee health, their potential role in widespread bee declines needs urgent assessment.

Anthropogenic influences on bee foraging

Efficient foraging is vital to bee fitness but is challenging in the Anthropocene.

No evidence of effects or interaction between the widely used herbicide, glyphosate, and a common parasite in bumble bees

BACKGROUND

Glyphosate is the world's most used pesticide and it is used without the mitigation measures that could reduce the exposure of pollinators to it. However, studies are starting to suggest negative impacts of this pesticide on bees, an essential group of pollinators. Accordingly, whether glyphosate, alone or alongside other stressors, is detrimental to bee health is a vital question. Bees are suffering declines across the globe, and pesticides, including glyphosate, have been suggested as being factors in these declines.

METHODS

Here we test, across a range of experimental paradigms, whether glyphosate impacts a wild bumble bee species, Bombus terrestris. In addition, we build upon existing work with honey bees testing glyphosate-parasite interactions by conducting fully crossed experiments with glyphosate and a common bumble bee trypanosome gut parasite, Crithidia bombi. We utilised regulatory acute toxicity testing protocols, modified to allow for exposure to multiple stressors. These protocols are expanded upon to test for effects on long term survival (20 days). Microcolony testing, using unmated workers, was employed to measure the impacts of either stressor on a proxy of reproductive success. This microcolony testing was conducted with both acute and chronic exposure to cover a range of exposure scenarios.

RESULTS

We found no effects of acute or chronic exposure to glyphosate, over a range of timespans post-exposure, on mortality or a range of sublethal metrics. We also found no interaction between glyphosate and Crithidia bombi in any metric, although there was conflicting evidence of increased parasite intensity after an acute exposure to glyphosate. In contrast to published literature, we found no direct impacts of this parasite on bee health. Our testing focussed on mortality and worker reproduction, so impacts of either or both of these stressors on other sublethal metrics could still exist.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results expand the current knowledge on glyphosate by testing a previously untested species, Bombus terrestris, using acute exposure, and by incorporating a parasite never before tested alongside glyphosate. In conclusion our results find that glyphosate, as an active ingredient, is unlikely to be harmful to bumble bees either alone, or alongside Crithidia bombi.