Exposure of Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Colonies to Pesticides in Pollen, A Statewide Assessment in Maine

Pesticide residues in nectar, pollen, and beebread matrices from rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): Which matrix is associated with the highest risks to the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.)?

This study investigated pesticide residues in nectar, pollen, and beebread samples collected from 17 apiaries situated near rapeseed fields in Golestan province, Iran. A total of 54 pesticides, including all those registered for use in the region within the past five years, were analyzed using UHPLC-MS/MS following QuEChERS extraction. A total of 19, 21, and 18 pesticides were detected in nectar, pollen, and beebread, respectively. While overall pesticide concentrations were similar across matrices, distinct pesticide distributions were observed. Fungicides (propiconazole, thiophanate-methyl, tebuconazole, and carbendazim), along with organophosphate and neonicotinoid insecticides, were more prevalent in beebread compared to pollen or nectar. Hazard quotients (HQs) and risk quotients (RQs) were calculated to evaluate potential risks to honey bees. Maximum HQ values for nectar, pollen, and beebread ranged from <0.01 to 5690.80, <0.01 to 4589.61, and <0.01 to 13,090.78, respectively. Diazinon, imidacloprid, and propiconazole exhibited the highest HQ values. Pollen and beebread samples were associated with the highest risks to honey bees, exhibiting a higher number of pesticides with HQs >50 and higher overall HQ values. RQ values revealed that diazinon and imidacloprid exceeded the level of concern for forager bees and drones, while diazinon posed a risk to nurse bees. Our findings highlight the potential exposure of honey bees to pesticide residues from rapeseed fields and emphasize the need for strategies to mitigate these risks.

Pesticide exposure patterns in honey bees during migratory pollination

Monitoring pesticide exposures in honey bees provides fundamental risk information that informs efforts to improve regulatory policy, pesticide use, and beekeeping management so pollinators are protected in realistic field conditions. We investigated pesticide exposures to bee colonies while colonies moved along commercial migratory routes in 2022 and 2023 to pollinate multiple pollinator-dependent, high-value U.S. specialty crops (e.g., almonds in California and apples and cherries in Washington). We found evident pesticide exposure patterns, including increasing exposures (both levels and number of pesticides) to fungicides during almond pollination, higher exposures to insecticides and persistent exposures to fungicides during springtime fruit pollination, and declining exposures in summer. Exposure risk assessment by risk quotient (RQ) model based on residues in bee bread indicates no concern of acute toxicity to adult honey bees during pollination, however, during colony inspections we found severe brood mortality in fields associated with high exposure to buprofezin, an insect growth regulator (IGR) thought to be safe for adult bees, which is permitted for use any time across the season. Our results suggest a need to improve compliance with insecticide label requirements during tree fruit pollination and a need for further research into the negative impacts of IGR on colony health especially on immature bees to inform potential policy changes.

The power to (detect) change: Can honey bee collected pollen be used to monitor pesticide residues in the landscape?

Analysis of trapped honey bee pollen for pesticide residues is the most widely used method of monitoring the amount of pesticide entering colonies and its change over time. In this study, we collected and analyzed pollen from 70 sites across four bee-pollinated crops over two years to characterize the variation in pesticide detection across sites, crops and at different periods during bloom. Hazard Quotient, HQ, is the most common way that pesticide residues are aggregated into a single pesticide hazard value in the current literature. Therefore, change in pesticide hazard (HQ) was quantified in composite pollen samples collected from pollen traps and in pollen color subsamples separated into pollen from the target crop being pollinated and pollen from other plant species. We used our estimates of the variation in HQ to calculate the number of sample location sites needed to detect a 5% annual change in HQ across all crops or within specific crops over a 5-year period. The number of sites required to be sampled varied by crop and year and ranged between 139 and 7194 sites, costing an estimated $129,548 and $3.35 million, respectively. The HQ values detectable for this cost would be 575 and 154. We identified additional factors that complicate the interpretation of the results as a way to evaluate changes in pest management practices at a state level. First, in all but one crop (meadowfoam), the pollen collected from outside the crop honey bee colonies were pollinating comprised a major percentage of the total pollen catch. Moreover, we found that when the overall quantity of pollen from different pollen sources was taken into account, differences in HQ among crops widened. We also found that while HQ estimates remain consistent across the bloom period for some crops, such as cherry, we observed large differences in other crops, notably meadowfoam. Overall, our results suggest the current practice of interpreting pesticides levels in pollen may come with limitations for agencies charged with improving pesticide stewardship due to the high variation associated with HQ values over time and across crops. Despite the limitations of HQ for detecting change in pesticide hazard, there remains a potential for HQ to provide feedback to regulators and scientists on field-realistic pesticide hazard within a landscape.

Application of a robust MALDI mass spectrometry approach for bee pollen investigation

Pollen collected by pollinators can be used as a marker of the foraging behavior as well as indicate the botanical species present in each environment. Pollen intake is essential for pollinators' health and survival. During the foraging activity, some pollinators, such as honeybees, manipulate the collected pollen mixing it with salivary secretions and nectar (corbicular pollen) changing the pollen chemical profile. Different tools have been developed for the identification of the botanical origin of pollen, based on microscopy, spectrometry, or molecular markers. However, up to date, corbicular pollen has never been investigated. In our work, corbicular pollen from 5 regions with different climate conditions was collected during spring. Pollens were identified with microscopy-based techniques, and then analyzed in MALDI-MS. Four different chemical extraction solutions and two physical disruption methods were tested to achieve a MALDI-MS effective protocol. The best performance was obtained using a sonication disruption method after extraction with acetic acid or trifluoroacetic acid. Therefore, we propose a new rapid and reliable methodology for the identification of the botanical origin of the corbicular pollens using MALDI-MS. This new approach opens to a wide range of environmental studies spanning from plant biodiversity to ecosystem trophic interactions.

Pesticide Contamination in Native North American Crops, Part II-Comparison of Flower, Honey Bee Workers, and Native Bee Residues in Lowbush Blueberry

In lowbush blueberry fields, we conducted residue analysis comparing flowers, trapped pollen (honey bee and Osmia spp.), and collected bees (honey bee workers, bumble bee queens, and non-Bombus spp. wild native bees). The study was conducted from 2012 to 2014. The number of pesticide residues, total concentrations, and risk to honey bees (Risk Quotient) on flowers were not significantly different from those determined for trapped honey bee pollen (except in one study year when residues detected in flower samples were significantly lower than residue numbers detected in trapped pollen). The compositions of residues were similar on flowers and trapped pollen. The number of residues detected in honey bee pollen was significantly greater than the number detected in Osmia spp. pollen, while the total concentration of residue was not different between the two types of pollen. The risk to honey bees was higher in trapped honey bee pollen than in trapped Osmia spp. pollen. The analysis of honey bee workers, native bumble bee queens, and native solitary bees showed that although more pesticide residues were detected on honey bee workers, there were no differences among the bee taxa in total residue concentrations or risk (as estimated in terms of risk to honey bees).

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

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

Risk assessment of honeybee larvae exposure to pyrethroid insecticides in beebread and honey

Honeybee is an essential pollinator to crops, evaluation to the risk assessment of honeybee larvae exposure to pesticides residue in the bee bread and honey is an important strategy to protect the bee colony due to the mixture of these two matrices is main food for 3-day-old honeybee larvae. In this study, a continuous survey to the residue of five pyrethroid insecticides in bee bread and honey between 2018 and 2020 from 17 major cultivation provinces which can be determined as Northeast, Northwest, Eastern, Central, Southwest, and Southern of China, there was at least one type II pyrethroid insecticide was detected in 54.7 % of the bee bread samples and 43.4 % of the honey. Then, we assayed the acute toxicity of type II pyrethroid insecticides based on the detection results, the LD50 value was 0.2201 μg/larva (beta-cyhalothrin), 0.4507 μg/larva (bifenthrin), 2.0840 μg/larva (fenvalerate), 0.0530 μg/larva (deltamethrin), and 0.1640 μg/larva (beta-cypermethrin), respectively. Finally, the hazard quotient was calculated as larval oral ranged from 0.046 × 10-3 to 2.128 × 10-3. Together, these empirical findings provide further insight into the accurate contamination of honey bee colonies caused by chemical pesticides, which can be used as a valuable guidance for the beekeeping industry and pesticide regulation.

Pesticide residues in honey bee (Apis mellifera) pollen collected in two ornamental plant nurseries in Connecticut: Implications for bee health and risk assessment

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are one of the most important managed pollinators of agricultural crops. While potential effects of agricultural pesticides on honey bee health have been investigated in some settings, risks to honey bees associated with exposures occurring in the plant nursery setting have received little attention. We sought to identify and quantify pesticide levels present in honey bee-collected pollen harvested in two ornamental plant nurseries (i.e., Nursery A and Nursery B) in Connecticut. From June to September 2018, pollen was collected weekly from 8 colonies using bottom-mounted pollen traps. Fifty-five unique pesticides (including related metabolites) were detected: 24 insecticides, 20 fungicides, and 11 herbicides. Some of the pesticide contaminants detected in the pollen had not been applied by the nurseries, indicating that the honey bee colonies did not exclusively forage on pollen at their respective nursery. The average number of pesticides per sample was similar at both nurseries (i.e., 12.9 at Nursery A and 14.2 at Nursery B). To estimate the potential risk posed to honey bees from these samples, we utilized the USEPA's BeeREX tool to calculate risk quotients (RQs) for each pesticide within each sample. The median aggregate RQ for nurse bees was 0.003 at both nurseries, well below the acute risk level of concern (LOC) of ≥0.4. We also calculated RQs for larvae due to their increased sensitivity to certain pesticides. In total, 6 samples had larval RQs above the LOC (0.45-2.51), resulting from the organophosphate insecticide diazinon. Since 2015, the frequency and amount of diazinon detected in pollen increased at one of our study locations, potentially due to pressure to reduce the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Overall, these data highlight the importance of considering all life stages when estimating potential risk to honey bee colonies from pesticide exposure.

Honey bee foraging and pesticide exposure in a desert urban agroecosystem

The negative impacts of industrial farming on honey bee health have been widely recognized regarding pesticide use and natural foraging habitat loss. An assessment of suitability of urban farms regarding honey bee health is necessary for sustainable development of agriculture and apiculture in urban settings. Urban farms that adopt organic farming practices with restrictions on synthetic pesticide use and conservation of natural habitat can potentially create an environment to mitigate these environmental stressors on honey bees. In this experiment, bee-collected pollen was taken from honey bee colonies that were located on five organically managed urban farms located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to evaluate pesticide exposure and forage use. We also explored the influence of hive equipment on honey bee health in a high desert climate. We found that honey bees on organic urban farms were not stressed by pesticides with limited pesticide types detected (2 out of 187), low residue levels (< 20 µg/kg) and low toxicity (either no, or low toxicity with LD50 at 1,450,300 µg/kg). Honey bees had access to diverse forage resources based on pollen barcoding data. When comparing hive equipment between 10-frame, 8-frame Langstroth and top bar hives, it was determined that 8-frame hives could significantly enhance honey bee health including colony survival and weight growth, comb construction and brood production. Our results suggest that organic urban farms are appropriate locations for securing honey bee health and food safety in a desert climate; while, the selection of hive equipment should be considered when mitigating environmental stress to colonies.

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.

The Value of Hazard Quotients in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Ecotoxicology: A Review

Estimates of pesticide application hazards have grown to be one of the most common methodologies for evaluating the impact of pest management practices on honey bees. Typically, hazards are estimated by calculating a Hazard Quotient (HQ), which is based on acute toxicity data for different pesticides and the quantity of those pesticides applied to a field or detected on bees and matrices associated with their hive (honey, wax, pollen, and/or bee bread). Although use of HQ is widespread, there have been few reviews of this methodology, particularly with focus on how effective this method is at predicting effects of pesticides on hives. We evaluated 36 relevant papers, containing calculations of HQ to estimate hazards to honey bees. We observed that HQ was primarily calculated using two different approaches: (1) from the concentration of pesticides in the food, hive, or tissues of honey bees or (2) using the field application rate of the active ingredient as the estimation of pesticide hazard. Within and between HQ calculation methods, thresholds vary widely with some HQ thresholds set below 1 and others set at 10,000. Based on our review we identify key weakness with current HQ methodology and how studies relate HQ to honey bee health endpoints. First, HQ thresholds from studies of pesticides in hives are not based on the same pesticide consumption models from the EPA, potentially overestimating the risk of impacts to colonies. Conversely, HQ estimates calculated from field application rates are not based on eco-toxicological estimates of field exposure, resulting in an overestimation of pesticide reaching colonies. We suggest it is for these reasons that there is poor correspondence between HQ and field-level honey bee health endpoints. Considering these challenges, HQ calculations should be used cautiously in future studies and more research should be dedicated to field level exposure models.

High abundance of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in bee pollen collected in July 2019 from Southern Germany

Pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PA) are secondary plant defense compounds and known pre-toxins when containing a 1,2-double bond. They are commonly produced by various plants and may thus be present in bee pollen which may be consumed by humans as food supplements. In this study, PA were determined in bee pollen samples from 57 locations in Southern Germany sampled by means of pollen traps in July 2019. Samples were analyzed by using palynological methodology and solid-phase extraction (SPE) followed by LC-MS/MS. In total, 52 pollen samples featured total pyrrolizidine alkaloids (ΣPA) with concentrations up to 48,000 ng/g bee pollen, while the N-oxides (NO) echinatine-NO and rinderine-NO clearly dominated. In contrast, the palynological analysis only detected 33 samples with pollen from PA-producing plants. Accordingly, the results showed that palynological analysis is not sufficient to determine PA in pollen. In addition, a risk assessment was followed to estimate the risk of the detected PA concentrations to humans.

Interaction of Insecticides and Fungicides in Bees

Honeybees and wild bees are among the most important pollinators of both wild and cultivated landscapes. In recent years, however, a significant decline in these pollinators has been recorded. This decrease can have many causes including the heavy use of biocidal plant protection products in agriculture. The most frequent residues in bee products originate from fungicides, while neonicotinoids and, to a lesser extent, pyrethroids are among the most popular insecticides detected in bee products. There is abundant evidence of toxic side effects on honeybees and wild bees produced by neonicotinoids, but only few studies have investigated side effects of fungicides, because they are generally regarded as not being harmful for bees. In the field, a variety of substances are taken up by bees including mixtures of insecticides and fungicides, and their combinations can be lethal for these pollinators, depending on the specific group of insecticide or fungicide. This review discusses the different combinations of major insecticide and fungicide classes and their effects on honeybees and wild bees. Fungicides inhibiting the sterol biosynthesis pathway can strongly increase the toxicity of neonicotinoids and pyrethroids. Other fungicides, in contrast, do not appear to enhance toxicity when combined with neonicotinoid or pyrethroid insecticides. But the knowledge on possible interactions of fungicides not inhibiting the sterol biosynthesis pathway and insecticides is poor, particularly in wild bees, emphasizing the need for further studies on possible effects of insecticide-fungicide interactions in bees.

Toxicity Evaluation of Selected Plant Water Extracts on a Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Larvae Model

Simple Summary

The honey bee is a very important link in food production. Conducting research into the influence of various factors on its biology is a very important element in the preservation of its population and pollination potential. It is very common for beekeepers to use plant extracts to combat bee pathogens. However, there are few studies assessing the effect of these extracts on the individual development stages of worker bees. Our research has shown that this is an essential element when making a decision on the use of a given extract, as it could negatively affect the survival of bee larvae. The proper development of worker bee larvae ensures an appropriate number of pollinators in the environment and the survival of bee colonies.

Abstract

So far, larval rearing in vitro has been an important method in the assessment of bee toxicology, particularly in pesticide risk assessment. However, natural products are increasingly used to control honey bee pathogens or to enhance bee immunity, but their effects on honey bee larvae are mostly unknown. In this study, laboratory studies were conducted to determine the effects of including selected aqueous plant infusions in the diet of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) larvae in vitro. The toxicity of infusions from three different plant species considered to be medicinal plants was evaluated: tansy (Tanacetum vulgare L.), greater celandine (Chelidonium majus L.), and coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.). The impact of each on the survival of the larvae of honey bees was also evaluated. One-day-old larvae were fed a basal diet consisting of distilled water, sugars (glucose and fructose), yeast extract, and freeze-dried royal jelly or test diets in which distilled water was replaced by plant infusions. The proportion of the diet components was adjusted to the age of the larvae. The larvae were fed twice a day. The experiment lasted seven days. Significant statistical differences in survival rates were found between groups of larvae (exposed or not to the infusions of tansy, greater celandine, and coriander). A significant decrease (p < 0.05) in the survival rate was observed in the group with the addition of a coriander herb infusion compared to the control. These results indicate that plant extracts intended to be used in beekeeping should be tested on all development stages of honey bees.

Maine's Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)-Part 2: Comparisons of a Common (Bombus ternarius) and a Rare (Bombus terricola) Species

As part of a quantitative survey of Maine's bumble bee fauna (Butler et al. 2021), we compared and contrasted genetic diversity, parasite and pathogen burdens, and pesticide exposure of the relatively common Bombus ternarius Say, 1937 and the spatially rare Bombus terricola Kirby, 1837. We recorded 11 Bombus species at 40 survey sites across three Maine ecoregions, and B. ternarius was the most common species, while B. terricola was spatially rare. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling indicated that B. terricola was associated with higher elevation sites in Maine, while B. ternarius was more broadly distributed in the state. Pollinator networks constructed for each bee indicated B. ternarius foraged on more plant species than B. terricola, but that there was considerable overlap (73%) in plant species visited. Genetic diversity was greater in the spatially restricted B. terricola, whereas the widely distributed B. ternarius was characterized by greater genetic differentiation among regions. Bombus terricola had higher molecular marker levels of the microsporidian fungi Nosema spp. and the trypanosome Crithidia spp., and both species had high levels of Trypanosoma spp. exposure. No Western Honey Bee (Apis mellifera, Linnaeus, 1758) viruses were detected in either species. Pesticides were not detected in pollen samples collected from workers of either species, and B. ternarius worker tissue samples exhibited only trace levels of diflubenzuron.

Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding

Pollen metabarcoding is emerging as a powerful tool for ecological research and offers unprecedented scale in citizen science projects for environmental monitoring via honey bees. Biases in metabarcoding can be introduced at any stage of sample processing and preservation is at the forefront of the pipeline. While in metabarcoding studies pollen has been preserved at - 20 °C (FRZ), this is not the best method for citizen scientists. Herein, we compared this method with ethanol (EtOH), silica gel (SG) and room temperature (RT) for preservation of pollen collected from hives in Austria and Denmark. After ~ 4 months of storage, DNAs were extracted with a food kit, and their quality and concentration measured. Most DNA extracts exhibited 260/280 absorbance ratios close to the optimal 1.8, with RT samples from Austria performing slightly worse than FRZ and SG samples (P < 0.027). Statistical differences were also detected for DNA concentration, with EtOH samples producing lower yields than RT and FRZ samples in both countries and SG in Austria (P < 0.042). Yet, qualitative and quantitative assessments of floral composition obtained using high-throughput sequencing with the ITS2 barcode gave non-significant effects of preservation methods on richness, relative abundance and Shannon diversity, in both countries. While freezing and ethanol are commonly employed for archiving tissue for molecular applications, desiccation is cheaper and easier to use regarding both storage and transportation. Since SG is less dependent on ambient humidity and less prone to contamination than RT, we recommend SG for preserving pollen for metabarcoding. SG is straightforward for laymen to use and hence robust for widespread application in citizen science studies.

The use of the Hazard Quotient approach to assess the potential risk to honeybees (Apis mellifera) posed by pesticide residues detected in bee-relevant matrices is not appropriate

BACKGROUND

Pesticide residue data for pollen and nectar are valuable for characterizing realistic exposure of pollinators, e.g. from agricultural crops, flowering margins. Interpretation of residues relies on comparing exposure with toxicity and the Hazard Quotient (HQ) is widely utilized. However, the HQ (threshold of concern 50) was only validated for foliar sprays, based on application rate as a proxy for exposure, not measured residues in bee-relevant matrices.

RESULTS

A review of the literature showed a range of HQ approaches and thresholds of concern used to assess non-foliar applications and residues detected in bee-relevant matrices, mostly pollen. The use of the HQ thresholds to assess risks associated with residue data or non-foliar spray application methods is not validated, does not reflect realistic exposure and the conclusions reached differ substantially from current risk assessment approaches. Re-evaluation of residue data from the first published use of the concentration-based HQ (2013) and a recent paper (2021) reduced the proportion of pesticides where a conclusion of potential risk was reached from 30 to 7% and 28% to 3-6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of the applicability of the selected risk assessment approach to the available residue data is needed to enable robust conclusions to be drawn on the potential risk to bees. Use of the HQ approach to assess the risk posed by application methods other than foliar sprays or residues in nectar and pollen is likely to result in unreliable conclusions. An alternative approach should be used to assess the significance of measured residues.

How and why beekeepers participate in the INSIGNIA citizen science honey bee environmental monitoring project

In the "contributory" citizen science project INSIGNIA, beekeepers carried out non-invasive sampling of their own honey bee colonies for an environmental investigation of pesticide residues and pollen plant origin. We surveyed several traits and attitudes of 69 of the volunteering beekeepers from ten countries. We found that their motivation was similar to that found in previous studies of environmental volunteer motivation, with helping the environment and contributing to scientific knowledge being strong motivators. Our results suggest that receiving laboratory analysis results of the samples from their colonies is the most meaningful way of appreciation for beekeepers, but is not their primary reason for participation. A citizen scientist beekeeper in this study spent on average 10.4 working hours on the project during a sampling season. Our study indicates that most of our volunteers would participate in similar future investigations, or would recommend participation to other beekeepers, underlining the potential of beekeepers as citizen scientists in honey bee research.

Honey Bee Health in Maine Wild Blueberry Production

Simple Summary

Wild blueberry is an important native North American crop that requires insect pollination. Migratory western honey bee colonies constitute the majority of commercial bees brought into Maine for pollination of wild blueberry. Currently, many stressors impact the western honey bee in the US. We designed a two-year monitoring study (2014 and 2015) to assess the potential health of honey bee colonies hired for pollination services in wild blueberry fields. We monitored the colony health of nine hive locations (three hives/location) in 2014 and nine locations (five hives/location) in 2015 during bloom (May–June). Queen health status, colony strength, rate of population increase, and pesticide residues on pollen, wax, and honey bee workers were measured. In addition, each hive was sampled to assess levels of mite parasites, viruses, and Microsporidian and Trypanosome pathogens. Different patterns in colony health were observed over the two years. Factors predicting colony growth rate over both years were Varroa mite infestation and risk due to pollen pesticide residues during bloom. In addition, recently discovered parasites and pathogens were already observed in most of the colonies suggesting that parasites and diseases spread rapidly and become established quickly in commercial honey bee colonies.

Abstract

A two-year study was conducted in Maine wild blueberry fields (Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton) on the health of migratory honey bee colonies in 2014 and 2015. In each year, three or five colonies were monitored at each of nine wild blueberry field locations during bloom (mid-May until mid-June). Colony health was measured by assessing colony strength during wild blueberry bloom. Potential factors that might affect colony health were queen failure or supersedure; pesticide residues on trapped pollen, wax comb, and bee bread; and parasites and pathogens. We found that Varroa mite and pesticide residues on trapped pollen were significant predictors of colony health measured as the rate of change in the amount of sealed brood during bloom. These two factors explained 71% of the variance in colony health over the two years. Pesticide exposure was different in each year as were pathogen prevalence and incidence. We detected high prevalence and abundance of two recently discovered pathogens and one recently discovered parasite, the trypanosome Lotmaria passim Schwartz, the Sinai virus, and the phorid fly, Apocephalus borealis Brues.

Pesticide residues in daily bee pollen samples (April-July) from an intensive agricultural region in Southern Germany

Insect-pollinated plants are essential for honey bees to feed their brood. In agricultural landscapes, honey bees and other pollinators are often exposed to pesticides used for cultivation. In order to gain more insight into the fluctuation of pesticide loads, 102 daily pollen samples were collected between April and July 2018 in a fruit-growing area in Southern Germany. Samples were analyzed with respect to more than 260 pesticides using a multi-residue pesticide analysis method. Almost 90% of the analyzed pollen samples featured between one and thirteen different pesticides. In total, 29 pesticides were detected at maximum concentrations of up to 4500 ng/g pollen. Maximum residual concentrations of most pesticides were observed during April and the first half of May, as well as during the second half of June. In most cases, serial data of pesticide residuals were detected for approximately 10 subsequent days with two or three maximum values, which were several folds higher than concentrations on the days before and thereafter. The pollen hazard quotient (PHQ) was calculated to estimate the risk of the detected pesticides to honey bees and wild pollinators.

Effects of Synthetic Acaricides and Nosema ceranae (Microsporidia: Nosematidae) on Molecules Associated with Chemical Communication and Recognition in Honey Bees

Acaricides and the gut parasite Nosema ceranae are commonly present in most productive hives. Those stressors could be affecting key semiochemicals, which act as homeostasis regulators in Apis mellifera colonies, such as cuticular hydrocarbons (CHC) involved in social recognition and ethyl oleate (EO) which plays a role as primer pheromone in honey bees. Here we test the effect of amitraz, coumaphos, tau-fluvalinate and flumethrin, commonly applied to treat varroosis, on honey bee survival time, rate of food consumption, CHC profiles and EO production on N. ceranae-infected and non-infected honey bees. Different sublethal concentrations of amitraz, coumaphos, tau-fluvalinate and flumethrin were administered chronically in a syrup-based diet. After treatment, purified hole-body extracts were analyzed by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. While N. ceranae infection was also shown to decrease EO production affecting survival rates, acaricides showed no significant effect on this pheromone. As for the CHC, we found no changes in relation to the health status or consumption of acaricides. This absence of alteration in EO or CHC as response to acaricides ingestion or in combination with N. ceranae, suggests that worker honey bees exposed to those highly ubiquitous drugs are hardly differentiated by nest-mates. Having determined a synergic effect on mortality in worker bees exposed to coumaphos and Nosema infection but also, alterations in EO production as a response to N. ceranae infection it is an interesting clue to deeper understand the effects of parasite-host-pesticide interaction on colony functioning.

Seek and you shall find: An assessment of the influence of the analytical methodologies on pesticide occurrences in honey bee-collected pollen with a systematic review

Honey bee mortality and colony losses have been reported worldwide. Although this phenomenon is caused by a combination of factors, agrochemicals have received special attention due to their potential effects on bees. In agricultural and urban environments bees are exposed to several compounds that may interact in unexpected ways, but information on the extent of pesticide exposure remains unclear. Several monitoring studies have been conducted to evaluate the field-realistic exposure of bees to pesticides after their release on the market. However, their outputs are difficult to compare and harmonize due to differences in the analytical methodologies and the sampling protocols (e.g. number of screened compounds and analysed samples, and detection limits (LODs)). Here, we hypothesize that the analytical methodologies used in the monitoring studies may strongly affect the pesticide occurrences in pollen underestimating the real pesticide exposure. By mean of a systematic literature review, we have collected relevant information on pesticide contaminations in the honey bee-collected pollen. Our findings showed that the pesticide occurrences were associated with the analytical methodologies and the real pesticide exposure has likely been underestimated in some monitoring studies. For four highly toxic compounds, the LOD used in these monitoring studies exceeded the doses that cause toxic effects on honey bees. We recommend that, especially for the highly toxic compounds, the LODs used in the monitoring studies should be low enough to exclude lethal or sublethal effects on bees and avoid "false negative" samples.

Exposure of Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) to pollen grains of soybean plants (Glycine max L.) originated from treated seeds

ABSTRACT Residues of plant protection products have been reported in floral resources such as pollen, but the potential risks of pollinator exposure are still unclear. Therefore, studies are needed to assess the risk of exposure/intoxication of bees, as they collect these resources to maintain their colony. The present study used a randomized design with five treatments: thiamethoxam, clothianidin, imidacloprid, fipronil, and a control. Pollen was collected from two soybean plants per repetition during their entire flowering period, mixed with 8 g of sugar cake (distilled water + sugar), and offered to adult bees that were then followed for the assessment of mortality over time (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 24 and 32 h after initial exposure). Among the generalized linear models evaluated, the beta binomial model was the best fit. The treatments were compared within each time period by overlapping credibility intervals using Bayesian inference. The probability of bee mortality was low in the first hours of evaluation and gradually increased over time in all chemical treatments. When comparing the means of the beta-binomial model, no statistical differences among treatments was observed, indicating a mortality similar to that of the control group.

Tracking Pesticide Residues to a Plant Genus Using Palynology in Pollen Trapped from Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) at Ornamental Plant Nurseries

Worldwide studies have used the technique of pollen trapping, collecting pollen loads from returning honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) foragers, to evaluate the exposure of honey bees to pesticides through pollen and as a biomonitoring tool. Typically, these surveys have found frequent contamination of pollen with multiple pesticides, with most of the estimated risk of acute oral toxicity to honey bees coming from insecticides. In our survey of pesticides in trapped pollen from three commercial ornamental plant nurseries in Connecticut, we found most samples within the range of acute toxicity in a previous state pollen survey, but a few samples at one nursery with unusually high acute oral toxicity. Using visual sorting by color of the pollen pellets collected in two samples from this nursery, followed by pesticide analysis of the sorted pollen and palynology to identify the plant sources of the pollen with the greatest acute toxicity of pesticide residues, we were able to associate pollen from the plant genus Spiraea L. (Rosales: Rosaceae) with extraordinarily high concentrations of thiamethoxam and clothianidin, and also with high concentrations of acephate and its metabolite methamidophos. This study is the first to trace highly toxic pollen collected by honey bees to a single plant genus. This method of tracking high toxicity pollen samples back to potential source plants could identify additional high-risk combinations of pesticide application methods and timing, movement into pollen, and attractiveness to bees that would be difficult to identify through modeling each of the contributing factors.