No evidence for neonicotinoid preferences in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens

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.

Effects of common co-occurring pesticides (a neonicotinoid and fungicide) on honey bee colony health in a semi-field study

Multiple stressors are linked to declines of insects and important pollinators, such as bees. Recently, interactive effects of multiple agrochemicals on bees have been highlighted, including fungicides, which increase toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides. Here, we use a semi-field study across two seasons in controlled foraging tunnels to test the effects of a field application of a commercial fungicide product with two active ingredients (pyraclostrobin and metconazole) applied at label rates. We also examine its interactive effects with the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin, at a conservative field-realistic dose of 2.23 ppb, on 48 honey bee colonies. We found combined effects of pesticide exposure, including additive 2.93-fold increases in mortality, and an additional effect of increased infestation levels of the ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor. Pesticide treatments also reduced colony activity, reduced colony weight, and increased sugar consumption of whole colonies. These findings indicate that typical sublethal exposure levels to common, co-occurring agrochemicals in the field significantly affect the health of whole honey bee colonies, highlighting an unintended consequence of increasing pesticide applications.

A novel insecticide impairs bumblebee memory and sucrose responsiveness across high and low nutrition

Wild bees are important pollinators of crops and wildflowers but are exposed to a myriad of different anthropogenic stressors, such as pesticides and poor nutrition, as a consequence of intensive agriculture. These stressors do not act in isolation, but interact, and may exacerbate one another. Here, we assessed whether a field-realistic concentration of flupyradifurone, a novel pesticide that has been labelled as 'bee safe' by regulators, influenced bumblebee sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory. In a fully crossed experimental design, we exposed individual bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) to flupyradifurone at high (50% (w/w)) or low (15% (w/w)) sucrose concentrations, replicating diets that are either carbohydrate rich or poor, respectively. We found that flupyradifurone impaired sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory at both sucrose concentrations, indicating that better nutrition did not buffer the negative impact of flupyradifurone. We found no individual impact of sugar deficiency on bee behaviour and no significant interactions between pesticide exposure and poor nutrition. Our results add to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that flupyradifurone has significant negative impacts on pollinators, indicating that this pesticide is not 'bee safe'. This suggests that agrochemical risk assessments are not protecting pollinators from the unintended consequences of pesticide use.

Impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on bumble bee energy metabolism are revealed under nectar starvation

Bumble bees are an important group of insects that provide essential pollination services as a consequence of their foraging behaviors. These pollination services are driven, in part, by energetic exchanges between flowering plants and individual bees. Thus, it is important to examine bumble bee energy metabolism and explore how it might be influenced by external stressors contributing to declines in global pollinator populations. Two stressors that are commonly encountered by bees are insecticides, such as the neonicotinoids, and nutritional stress, resulting from deficits in pollen and nectar availability. Our study uses a metabolomic approach to examine the effects of neonicotinoid insecticide exposure on bumble bee metabolism, both alone and in combination with nutritional stress. We hypothesized that exposure to imidacloprid disrupts bumble bee energy metabolism, leading to changes in key metabolites involved in central carbon metabolism. We tested this by exposing Bombus impatiens workers to imidacloprid according to one of three exposure paradigms designed to explore how chronic versus more acute (early or late) imidacloprid exposure influences energy metabolite levels, then also subjecting them to artificial nectar starvation. The strongest effects of imidacloprid were observed when bees also experienced nectar starvation, suggesting a combinatorial effect of neonicotinoids and nutritional stress on bumble bee energy metabolism. Overall, this study provides important insights into the mechanisms underlying the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides on pollinators, and underscores the need for further investigation into the complex interactions between environmental stressors and energy metabolism.

Pesticide Exposure and Effects on Non-Apis Bees

Bees are essential pollinators of many crops and wild plants, and pesticide exposure is one of the key environmental stressors affecting their health in anthropogenically modified landscapes. Until recently, almost all information on routes and impacts of pesticide exposure came from honey bees, at least partially because they were the only model species required for environmental risk assessments (ERAs) for insect pollinators. Recently, there has been a surge in research activity focusing on pesticide exposure and effects for non-Apis bees, including other social bees (bumble bees and stingless bees) and solitary bees. These taxa vary substantially from honey bees and one another in several important ecological traits, including spatial and temporal activity patterns, foraging and nesting requirements, and degree of sociality. In this article, we review the current evidence base about pesticide exposure pathways and the consequences of exposure for non-Apis bees. We find that the insights into non-Apis bee pesticide exposure and resulting impacts across biological organizations, landscapes, mixtures, and multiple stressors are still in their infancy. The good news is that there are many promising approaches that could be used to advance our understanding, with priority given to informing exposure pathways, extrapolating effects, and determining how well our current insights (limited to very few species and mostly neonicotinoid insecticides under unrealistic conditions) can be generalized to the diversity of species and lifestyles in the global bee community. We conclude that future research to expand our knowledge would also be beneficial for ERAs and wider policy decisions concerning pollinator conservation and pesticide regulation.

Mouthparts of the bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) exhibit poor acuity for the detection of pesticides in nectar

Bees are important pollinators of agricultural crops, but their populations are at risk when pesticides are used. One of the largest risks bees face is poisoning of floral nectar and pollen by insecticides. Studies of bee detection of neonicotinoids have reported contradictory evidence about whether bees can taste these pesticides in sucrose solutions and hence avoid them. Here, we use an assay for the detection of food aversion combined with single-sensillum electrophysiology to test whether the mouthparts of the buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) detect the presence of pesticides in a solution that mimicked the nectar of oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Bees did not avoid consuming solutions containing concentrations of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, or sulfoxaflor spanning six orders of magnitude, even when these solutions contained lethal doses. Only extremely high concentrations of the pesticides altered spiking in gustatory neurons through a slight reduction in firing rate or change in the rate of adaptation. These data provide strong evidence that bumblebees cannot detect or avoid field-relevant concentrations of pesticides using information from their mouthparts. As bees rarely contact floral nectar with other body parts, we predict that they are at high risk of unwittingly consuming pesticides in the nectar of pesticide-treated crops.

Seed treatment with clothianidin induces changes in plant metabolism and alters pollinator foraging preferences

Neonicotinoids, systemic insecticides that are distributed into all plant tissues and protect against pests, have become a common part of crop production, but can unintentionally also affect non-target organisms, including pollinators. Such effects can be direct effects from insecticide exposure, but neonicotinoids can affect plant physiology, and effects could therefore also be indirectly mediated by changes in plant phenology, attractiveness and nutritional value. Under controlled greenhouse conditions, we tested if seed treatment with the neonicotinoid clothianidin affected oilseed rape's production of flower resources for bees and the content of the secondary plant products glucosinolates that provide defense against herbivores. Additionally, we tested if seed treatment affected the attractiveness of oilseed rape to flower visiting bumblebees, using outdoor mesocosms. Flowers and leaves of clothianidin-treated plants had different profiles of glucosinolates compared with untreated plants. Bumblebees in mesocosms foraged slightly more on untreated plants. Neither flower timing, flower size nor the production of pollen and nectar differed between treatments, and therefore cannot explain any preference for untreated oilseed rape. We instead propose that this small but significant preference for untreated plants was related to the altered glucosinolate profile caused by clothianidin. Thereby, this study contributes to the understanding of the complex relationships between neonicotinoid-treated crops and pollinator foraging choices, by suggesting a potential mechanistic link by which insecticide treatment can affect insect behavior.

Sublethal doses of insecticide reduce thermal tolerance of a stingless bee and are not avoided in a resource choice test

Insecticides and climate change are among the multiple stressors that bees face, but little is known about their synergistic effects, especially for non-Apis bee species. In laboratory experiments, we tested whether the stingless bee Tetragonula hockingsi avoids insecticide in sucrose solutions and how T. hockingsi responds to insecticide and heat stress combined. We found that T. hockingsi neither preferred nor avoided sucrose solutions with either low (2.5 × 10-4 ng µl-1 imidacloprid or 1.0 × 10-4 ng µl-1 fipronil) or high (2.5 × 10-3 ng µl-1 imidacloprid or 1.0 × 10-3 ng µl-1 fipronil) insecticide concentrations when offered alongside sucrose without insecticide. In our combined stress experiment, the smallest dose of imidacloprid (7.5 × 10-4 ng) did not significantly affect thermal tolerance (CTmax). However, CTmax significantly reduced by 0.8°C (±0.16 SE) and by 0.5°C (±0.16 SE) when bees were fed as little as 7.5 × 10-3 ng of imidacloprid or 3.0 × 10-4 ng of fipronil, respectively, and as much as 1.5°C (±0.16 SE) and 1.2°C (±0.16 SE) when bees were fed 7.5 × 10-2 ng of imidacloprid or 3.0 × 10-2 ng of fipronil, respectively. Predictions of temperature increase, and increased insecticide use in the tropics suggest that T. hockingsi will be at increased risk of the effects of both stressors in the future.

Toxic temperatures: Bee behaviours exhibit divergent pesticide toxicity relationships with warming

Climate change and agricultural intensification are exposing insect pollinators to temperature extremes and increasing pesticide usage. Yet, we lack good quantification of how temperature modulates the sublethal effects of pesticides on behaviours vital for fitness and pollination performance. Consequently, we are uncertain if warming decreases or increases the severity of different pesticide impacts, and whether separate behaviours vary in the direction of response. Quantifying these interactive effects is vital in forecasting pesticide risk across climate regions and informing pesticide application strategies and pollinator conservation. This multi-stressor study investigated the responses of six functional behaviours of bumblebees when exposed to either a neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) or a sulfoximine (sulfoxaflor) across a standardised low, mid, and high temperature. We found the neonicotinoid had a significant effect on five of the six behaviours, with a greater effect at the lower temperature(s) when measuring responsiveness, the likelihood of movement, walking rate, and food consumption rate. In contrast, the neonicotinoid had a greater impact on flight distance at the higher temperature. Our findings show that different organismal functions can exhibit divergent thermal responses, with some pesticide-affected behaviours showing greater impact as temperatures dropped, and others as temperatures rose. We must therefore account for environmental context when determining pesticide risk. Moreover, we found evidence of synergistic effects, with just a 3°C increase causing a sudden drop in flight performance, despite seeing no effect of pesticide at the two lower temperatures. Our findings highlight the importance of multi-stressor studies to quantify threats to insects, which will help to improve dynamic evaluations of population tipping points and spatiotemporal risks to biodiversity across different climate regions.

The Neonicotinoid Imidacloprid Impairs Learning, Locomotor Activity Levels, and Sucrose Solution Consumption in Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris)

Bumblebees carry out the complex task of foraging to provide for their colonies. They also conduct pollination, an ecosystem service of high importance to both wild plants and entomophilous crops. Insecticides can alter different aspects of bumblebee foraging behavior, including the motivation to leave the hive, finding the right flowers, handling flowers, and the ability to return to the colony. In the present study, we assessed how the neonicotinoid imidacloprid affects bumblebees' foraging behavior after exposure to four different treatment levels, including field-realistic concentrations (0 [control], 1, 10, and 100 μg/L), through sucrose solution over 9 days. We observed the behavior of several free-flying bumblebees simultaneously foraging on artificial flowers in a flight arena to register the bees' complex behavior postexposure. To conduct a detailed assessment of how insecticides affect bumblebee locomotor behavior, we used video cameras and analyzed the recordings using computer vision. We found that imidacloprid impaired learning and locomotor activity level when the bumblebees foraged on artificial flowers. We also found that imidacloprid exposure reduced sucrose solution intake and storage. By using automated analyses of video recordings of bumblebee behavior, we identified sublethal effects of imidacloprid exposure at field-realistic doses. Specifically, we observed negative impacts on consumption of sucrose solution as well as on learning and locomotor activity level. Our results highlight the need for more multimodal approaches when assessing the sublethal effects of insecticides and plant protection products in general. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:1337-1345. © 2023 SETAC.

Imidacloprid Pesticide Causes Unexpectedly Severe Bioelement Deficiencies and Imbalance in Honey Bees Even at Sublethal Doses

Pesticides impair honeybee health in many ways. Imidacloprid (IMD) is a pesticide used worldwide. No information exists on how IMD impact the bees' body bioelement balance, which is essential for bee health. We hypothesized that IMD disturbs this balance and fed the bees (in field conditions) with diets containing 0 ppb (control), 5 ppb (sublethal considered field-relevant), and 200 ppb (adverse) doses of IMD. IMD severely reduced the levels of K, Na, Ca, and Mg (electrolytic) and of Fe, Mo, Mn, Co, Cu, Ni, Se, and Zn, while those of Sn, V, and Cr (enzymatic) were increased. Levels of P, S, Ti, Al, Li, and Sr were also decreased, while only the B content (physiologically essential) was increased. The increase in Tl, Pb, and As levels (toxic) was alarming. Generally, IMD, even in sublethal doses, unexpectedly led to severe bioelement malnutrition in 69% of bioelements and to a stoichiometric mismatch in the remaining ones. This points to the IMD-dependent bioelement disturbance as another, yet unaccounted for, essential metabolic element which can interfere with apian health. Consequently, there is a need for developing methods of bioelement supplementation of the honey bee diet for better preventing bee colony decline and protecting apian health status when faced with pesticides.

Environmental pharmacology-Dosing the environment: IUPHAR review 36

Pesticide action is predominantly measured as a toxicological outcome, with pharmacological impact of sublethal doses on bystander species left largely undocumented. Likewise, chronic exposure, which often results in responses different from acute administration, has also been understudied. In this article, we propose the application of standard pharmacological principles, already used to establish safe clinical dosing regimens in humans, to the 'dosing of the environment'. These principles include relating the steady state dose of an agent to its beneficial effects (e.g. pest control), while minimising harmful impacts (e.g. off-target bioactivity in beneficial insects). We propose the term 'environmental therapeutic window', analogous to that used in mammalian pharmacology, to guide risk assessment. To make pharmacological terms practically useful to environmental protection, quantitative data on pesticide action need to be made available in a freely accessible database, which should include toxicological and pharmacological impacts on both target and off-target species.

Review on effects of some insecticides on honey bee health

Insecticides, one of the main agrochemicals, are useful for controlling pests; however, the indiscriminate use of insecticides has led to negative effects on nontarget insects, especially honey bees, which are essential for pollination services. Different classes of insecticides, such as neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, chlorantraniliprole, spinosad, flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor, not only negatively affect honey bee growth and development but also decrease their foraging activity and pollination services by influencing their olfactory sensation, memory, navigation back to the nest, flight ability, and dance circuits. Honey bees resist the harmful effects of insecticides by coordinating the expression of genes related to immunity, metabolism, and detoxification pathways. To our knowledge, more research has been conducted on the effects of neonicotinoids on honey bee health than those of other insecticides. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge regarding the effects of some insecticides, especially neonicotinoids, on honey bee health. Possible strategies to increase the positive impacts of insecticides on agriculture and reduce their negative effects on honey bees are also discussed.

Identification and quantitation of the novel insecticide sulfoxaflor and its metabolites in floral nectar from Salvia splendens Ker Gawl. (Lamiaceae)

Sulfoxaflor is a new systemic insecticide developed as a replacement for older neonicotinoids which are known to be toxic to pollinators. However, its metabolism in nectar and effect on nectar biosynthesis have not been investigated. After soil and foliar application, sulfoxaflor and its main metabolites in soil, leaf and Salvia splendens nectar, were measured by liquid chromatography coupled with triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS). The chemical composition between the clean and sulfoxaflor spiked nectar were also compared. The activities of two possible sulfoxaflor detoxifying enzymes in S. splendens nectar, nitrile hydratase and glutathione-s-transferase, were measured by LC-MS and spectrophotometry. S. splendens nectar proteome was investigated by high-resolution orbitrap-based MS/MS to screen for sulfoxaflor detoxifying relevant proteins. S. splendens could absorb sulfoxaflor through root or leaf surface and secrete a proportion of sulfoxaflor along with its metabolites into the nectar. After soil application, sulfoxaflor's low toxic metabolite X11719474 was dominant in the nectar and reached an average concentration of 8905 ppb. However, after foliar application, sulfoxaflor was dominant over its metabolites in the nectar. S. splendens nectar has no nitrile hydratase and glutathione-s-transferase activity and none of the 106 proteins identified in the nectar were predicted to function in detoxifying sulfoxaflor. Soil and foliar sulfoxaflor application can result in different profiles of sulfoxaflor and its metabolites presented in the nectar. However, sulfoxaflor had no effects on S. splendens nectar secretion and chemical composition and cannot be directly detoxified by components in the nectar.

Contact exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides temporarily suppresses the locomotor activity of Pardosa lugubris agrobiont wolf spiders

Exposure to numerous chemicals disrupts the spiders' locomotion. Spiders, particularly epigeic spiders, are dependent on their locomotory activities to search for prey, hide from their enemies, and perform sexual reproduction and subsequent parental care. Among the best-known compounds that inhibit the locomotion of arthropods are neonicotinoids. Despite spiders are less affected by the neonicotinoids than insects due to the sequence differences in their acetylcholine receptors, they are not resistant to these compounds. We hypothesized that acute exposure to a broad spectrum of neonicotinoids suppresses the traveled distance, mean velocity, and maximum velocity in epigeic spiders. As a model species, we used adults of Pardosa lugubris. We tested commercial formulations of thiamethoxam, acetamiprid, and thiacloprid. We tested each of the neonicotinoids in the maximum and minimum concentrations recommended for foliar applications. We applied them under controlled conditions dorsally by spraying them directly on the spiders or exposing the spiders to the tarsal contact with neonicotinoid residues. Control groups consisted of 31 individuals; treated groups consisted of 10–21 individuals. We found that a broad spectrum of neonicotinoids temporarily suppresses the traveled distance in epigeic spiders. At 1 h after application, all the three tested neonicotinoid insecticides induced declines in the traveled distance, but this effect mostly disappeared when tested at 24 h after the application. The decrease in the traveled distance was associated with substantial temporary decreases in the mean and maximum velocities. Despite differences among modalities, all three insecticides caused multiple adverse effects on the locomotory parameters in any tested concentrations. It remains to test what would be the lowest safe concentration for the chronic exposure to neonicotinoids in epigeic spiders.

No effect of dual exposure to sulfoxaflor and a trypanosome parasite on bumblebee olfactory learning

Bees are important pollinators in wild and agricultural ecosystems, and understanding the factors driving their global declines is key to maintaining these pollination services. Learning, which has been a focus of previous ecotoxicological studies in bees, may play a key role in driving colony fitness. Here we move beyond the standard single-stressor approach to ask how multiple stressors, an agrochemical (sulfoxaflor, a relatively new insecticide) and a parasite (Crithidia bombi, a prevalent gut parasite of bumblebees), impact learning in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. We developed a modified version of the classic proboscis extension reflex assay to assess the combined effects of acute oral sulfoxaflor exposure and infection by C. bombi on olfactory learning of bumblebee workers. We found no evidence that either sulfoxaflor, C. bombi, or their combination had any significant effect on bumblebee olfactory learning, despite their known negative impacts on other aspects of bumblebee health. This suggests that losses in cognitive ability, as measured here, are unlikely to explain the impacts of sulfoxaflor and its interactions with other stressors on bumblebees. Our novel methodology provides a model system within which to test interactive effects of other key stressors on bee health.

A Combined LD50 for Agrochemicals and Pathogens in Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris [Hymenoptera: Apidae])

Neonicotinoid insecticides are the most commonly used insecticide in the world and can have significant sub-lethal impacts on beneficial insects, including bumblebees, which are important pollinators of agricultural crops and wild-flowers. This has led to bans on neonicotinoid use in the EU and has resulted in repeated calls for the agrochemical regulatory process to be modified. For example, there is increasing concern about 1) the underrepresentation of wild bees, such as bumblebees, in the regulatory process, and 2) the failure to determine how agrochemicals, such as neonicotinoids, interact with other commonly occurring environmental stressors, such as parasites. Here, we modify an OECD approved lethal dose (LD50) experimental design and coexpose bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) to the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam and the highly prevalent trypanosome parasite Crithidia bombi, in a fully crossed design. We found no difference in the LD50 of thiamethoxam on bumblebees that had or had not been inoculated with the parasite (Crithidia bombi). Furthermore, thiamethoxam dosage did not appear to influence the parasite intensity of surviving bumblebees, and there was no effect of either parasite or insecticide on sucrose consumption. The methodology used demonstrates how existing ring-tested experimental designs can be effectively modified to include other environmental stressors such as parasites. Moving forward, the regulatory process should implement methodologies that assess the interactions between agrochemicals and parasites on non-Apis bees and, in cases when this is not practical, should implement post-regulatory monitoring to better understand the real-world consequences of agrochemical use.

Thiamethoxam as an inadvertent anti-aphrodisiac in male bees

•

There is consensus that neonicotinoids can impact non-target animal fertility.

•

Thiamethoxam reduced both mating success and sperm physiology in bumblebees.

•

Queens mated by exposed males had 50% less total living sperm in their spermatheca.

•

Thiamethoxam may act as anti-aphrodisiac, thereby limiting conservation efforts.

Sexual reproduction is common to almost all multi-cellular organisms and can be compromised by environmental pollution, thereby affecting entire populations. Even though there is consensus that neonicotinoid insecticides can impact non-target animal fertility, their possible impact on male mating success is currently unknown in bees. Here, we show that sublethal exposure to a neonicotinoid significantly reduces both mating success and sperm traits of male bumblebees. Sexually mature male Bombus terrestris exposed to a field-realistic concentration of thiamethoxam (20 ng g⁻¹) or not (controls) were mated with virgin gynes in the laboratory. The results confirm sublethal negative effects of thiamethoxam on sperm quantity and viability. While the latency to mate was reduced, mating success was significantly impaired in thiamethoxam-exposed males by 32% probably due to female choice. Gynes mated by exposed males revealed impaired sperm traits compared to their respective controls, which may lead to severe constraints for colony fitness. Our laboratory findings demonstrate for the first time that neonicotinoid insecticides can negatively affect male mating success in bees. Given that holds true for the field, this provides a plausible mechanism contributing to declines of wild bee populations globally. The widespread prophylactic use of neonicotinoids may therefore have previously overlooked inadvertent anti-aphrodisiac effects on non-target animals, thereby limiting conservation efforts.

Bumblebees Exposed to a Neonicotinoid Pesticide Make Suboptimal Foraging Decisions

Bumblebees are important pollinators of agricultural crops and wildflowers, but many species are in decline. Neonicotinoid insecticides are the most commonly used insecticide globally and can have negative sublethal effects on bumblebee colony growth and reproduction. Individual bumblebees can visit hundreds to thousands of flowers a day to forage for their colony. As such, they are a model species for studying optimal foraging, and small impairments to an individual's foraging decisions may have compounding effects on the colony's nutritional intake. We exposed bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) to an acute, field-realistic dose of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, before allowing them to forage on an artificial floral array. We found that neonicotinoid-exposed bumblebees made suboptimal foraging decisions, as they were more likely to visit flowers located further apart than control bees. This indicates that for a given flower patch, individual bees exposed to a neonicotinoid will likely use more energy and forage less efficiency than unexposed bees, although further studies that directly measure energetic cost are required to confirm this. Given the robust and growing body of evidence demonstrating negative sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on bees, sublethal assessments on non-Apis bees should be made mandatory within the regulatory process.

Oviposition Response of Monarch Butterfly (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) to Imidacloprid-Treated Milkweed

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) populations have declined over the last two decades, attributable in part to declines in its larval host plant, milkweed (Asclepias spp.), across its breeding range. Conservation efforts in the United States call for restoration of 1.3 billion milkweed stems into the Midwestern landscape. Reaching this goal will require habitat establishment in marginal croplands, where there is a high potential for exposure to agrochemicals. Corn and soybean crops may be treated with neonicotinoid insecticides systemically or through foliar applications to provide protection against insect pests. Here, we investigate whether ovipositing monarchs discriminate against milkweed plants exposed to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, either systemically or through foliar application. In our first experiment, we placed gravid females in enclosures containing a choice of two cut stems for oviposition: one in 15 ml of a 0.5 mg/ml aqueous solution of imidacloprid and one in 15 ml water. In a second experiment, females were given a choice of milkweed plants whose leaves were treated with 30 µl of a 0.825 mg/ml imidacloprid-surfactant solution or plants treated with surfactant alone. To evaluate oviposition preference, we counted and removed eggs from all plants daily for 3 d. We also collected video data on a subset of butterflies to evaluate landing behavior. Results indicate that neither systemic nor foliar treatment with imidacloprid influenced oviposition behavior in female monarchs. The implications of these findings for monarch conservation practices will be informed by the results of ongoing egg and larval toxicity studies.

Peripheral taste detection in honey bees: What do taste receptors respond to?

Understanding the neural principles governing taste perception in species that bear economic importance or serve as research models for other sensory modalities constitutes a strategic goal. Such is the case of the honey bee (Apis mellifera), which is environmentally and socioeconomically important, given its crucial role as pollinator agent in agricultural landscapes and which has served as a traditional model for visual and olfactory neurosciences and for research on communication, navigation, and learning and memory. Here we review the current knowledge on honey bee gustatory receptors to provide an integrative view of peripheral taste detection in this insect, highlighting specificities and commonalities with other insect species. We describe behavioral and electrophysiological responses to several tastant categories and relate these responses, whenever possible, to known molecular receptor mechanisms. Overall, we adopted an evolutionary and comparative perspective to understand the neural principles of honey bee taste and define key questions that should be answered in future gustatory research centered on this insect.