Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera,Bombusspp. and solitary bees)

Comparing Sensitivity of Different Bee Species to Pesticides: A TKTD modeling approach

Risk assessment for bees is mainly based on data for honey bees; however, risk assessment is intended to protect all bee species. This raises the question of whether data for honey bees are a good proxy for other bee species. This issue is not new and has resulted in several publications in which the sensitivity of bee species is compared based on the values of the 48-h median lethal dose (LD50) from acute test results. When this approach is used, observed differences in sensitivity may result both from differences in kinetics and from inherent differences in species sensitivity. In addition, the physiology of the bee, like its overall size, the size of the honey stomach (for acute oral tests), and the physical appearance (for acute contact tests) also influences the sensitivity of the bee. The recently introduced Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic (TKTD) model that was developed for the interpretation of honey bee tests (Bee General Uniform Threshold Model for Survival [BeeGUTS]) could integrate the results of acute oral tests, acute contact tests, and chronic tests within one consistent framework. We show that the BeeGUTS model can be calibrated and validated for other bee species and also that the honey bee is among the more sensitive bee species. In addition, we found that differences in sensitivity between species are smaller than previously published comparisons based on 48-h LD50 values. The time-dependency of the LD50 and the specifics of the bee physiology are the main causes of the wider variation found in the published literature. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:1431-1441. © 2024 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Breaking the cycle: Reforming pesticide regulation to protect pollinators

Over decades, pesticide regulations have cycled between approval and implementation, followed by the discovery of negative effects on nontarget organisms that result in new regulations, pesticides, and harmful effects. This relentless pattern undermines the capacity to protect the environment from pesticide hazards and frustrates end users that need pest management tools. Wild pollinating insects are in decline, and managed pollinators such as honey bees are experiencing excessive losses, which threatens sustainable food security and ecosystem function. An increasing number of studies demonstrate the negative effects of field-realistic exposure to pesticides on pollinator health and fitness, which contribute to pollinator declines. Current pesticide approval processes, although they are superior to past practices, clearly continue to fail to protect pollinator health. In the present article, we provide a conceptual framework to reform cyclical pesticide approval processes and better protect pollinators.

Investigating the effects of glyphosate on the bumblebee proteome and microbiota

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides globally. It acts by inhibiting an enzyme in an aromatic amino acid synthesis pathway specific to plants and microbes, leading to the view that it poses no risk to other organisms. However, there is growing concern that glyphosate is associated with health effects in humans and an ever-increasing body of evidence that suggests potential deleterious effects on other animals including pollinating insects such as bees. Although pesticides have long been considered a factor in the decline of wild bee populations, most research on bees has focussed on demonstrating and understanding the effects of insecticides. To assess whether glyphosate poses a risk to bees, we characterised changes in survival, behaviour, sucrose solution consumption, the digestive tract proteome, and the microbiota in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris after chronic exposure to field relevant doses of technical grade glyphosate or the glyphosate-based formulation, RoundUp Optima+®. Regardless of source, there were changes in response to glyphosate exposure in important cellular and physiological processes in the digestive tract of B. terrestris, with proteins associated with oxidative stress regulation, metabolism, cellular adhesion, the extracellular matrix, and various signalling pathways altered. Interestingly, proteins associated with endocytosis, oxidative phosphorylation, the TCA cycle, and carbohydrate, lipid, and amino acid metabolism were differentially altered depending on whether the exposure source was glyphosate alone or RoundUp Optima+®. In addition, there were alterations to the digestive tract microbiota of bees depending on the glyphosate source No impacts on survival, behaviour, or food consumption were observed. Our research provides insights into the potential mode of action and consequences of glyphosate exposure at the molecular, cellular and organismal level in bumblebees and highlights issues with the current honeybee-centric risk assessment of pesticides and their formulations, where the impact of co-formulants on non-target organisms are generally overlooked.

Using Pop-GUIDE to Assess the Applicability of MCnest for Relative Risk of Pesticides to Hummingbirds

Hummingbirds are charismatic fauna that provide important pollination services, including in the continental US, where 15 species regularly breed. Compared to other birds in North America, hummingbirds (family Trochilidae) have a unique exposure route to pesticides because they forage on nectar. Therefore, hummingbirds may be exposed to systemic pesticides borne in nectar. They also may be particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure due to their small size and extreme metabolic demands. We review relevant factors including hummingbird life history, nectar residue uptake, and avian bioenergetic considerations with the goal of clearly identifying and articulating the specific modeling challenges that must be overcome to develop and/or adapt existing modeling approaches. To help evaluate these factors, we developed a dataset for ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) and other avian species potentially exposed to pesticides. We used the systemic neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid as an illustration and compared results to five other common current use pesticides. We use the structure of Pop-GUIDE to provide a conceptual modeling framework for implementation of MCnest and to compile parameter values and relevant algorithms to predict the effects of pesticide exposure on avian pollinators. Conservative screening assessments suggest the potential for adverse effects from imidacloprid, as do more refined assessments, though many important limitations and uncertainties remain. Our review found many areas in which current USEPA avian models must be improved in order to conduct a full higher-tier risk assessment for avian pollinators exposed to neonicotinoid insecticides, including addition of models suitable for soil and seed treatments within the MCnest environment, ability to include empirical residue data in both nectar and invertebrates rather than relying on existing nomograms, expansion of MCnest to a full annual cycle, and increased representation of spatial heterogeneity. Although this work focuses on hummingbirds, the methods and recommendations may apply more widely to other vertebrate pollinators.

Decision-making criteria for pesticide spraying considering the bees’ presence on crops to reduce their exposure risk

The risk of poisoning bees by sprayed pesticides depends on the attractiveness of plants and environmental and climatic factors. Thus, to protect bees from pesticide intoxication, an usual exemption to pesticide regulations allows for spraying on blooming flowers with insecticides or acaricides when no bees are foraging on crops. Nevertheless, decision-making criteria for farmers to assess the absence of bees on their crops remain under debate. To fill this gap, we present here a review of the literature and an analysis of weather conditions and environmental factors that affect the presence of bees on flowering crops that may be treated with pesticides, with the objective of proposing to farmers a series of decision-making criteria on how and when to treat. We conclude that the criteria commonly considered, such as ambient temperature, crop attractiveness, or distance from field edges, cannot guarantee the absence of forager exposure during pesticide sprays. Nocturnal sprays of pesticides on crops would be the most effective action to help farmers avoid unintentional acute poisoning of bees.

Mixture effects of thiamethoxam and seven pesticides with different modes of action on honey bees (Aplis mellifera)

Even though honey bees in the field are routinely exposed to a complex mixture of many different agrochemicals, few studies have surveyed toxic effects of pesticide mixtures on bees. To elucidate the interactive actions of pesticides on crop pollinators, we determined the individual and joint toxicities of thiamethoxam (THI) and other seven pesticides [dimethoate (DIM), methomyl (MET), zeta-cypermethrin (ZCY), cyfluthrin (CYF), permethrin (PER), esfenvalerate (ESF) and tetraconazole (TET)] to honey bees (Aplis mellifera) with feeding toxicity test. Results from the 7-days toxicity test implied that THI elicited the highest toxicity with a LC₅₀ data of 0.25 (0.20-0.29) μg mL^-1, followed by MET and DIM with LC₅₀ data of 4.19 (3.58-4.88) and 5.30 (4.65-6.03) μg mL^-1, respectively. By comparison, pyrethroids and TET possessed relatively low toxicities with their LC₅₀ data from the range of 33.78 (29.12-38.39) to 1125 (922.4-1,442) μg mL^-1. Among 98 evaluated THI-containing binary to octonary mixtures, 29.59% of combinations exhibited synergistic effects. In contrast, 18.37% of combinations exhibited antagonistic effects on A. mellifera. Moreover, 54.8% pesticide combinations incorporating THI and TET displayed synergistic toxicities to the insects. Our findings emphasized that the coexistence of several pesticides might induce enhanced toxicity to honey bees. Overall, our results afforded worthful toxicological information on the combined actions of neonicotinoids and current-use pesticides on honey bees, which could accelerate farther comprehend on the possible detriments of other pesticide mixtures in agro-environment.

The global biomass and number of terrestrial arthropods

Insects and other arthropods are central to terrestrial ecosystems. However, data are lacking regarding their global population abundance. We synthesized thousands of evaluations from around 500 sites worldwide, estimating the absolute biomass and abundance of terrestrial arthropods across different taxa and habitats. We found that there are ≈1 × 1019 (twofold uncertainty range) soil arthropods on Earth, ≈95% of which are soil mites and springtails. The soil contains ≈200 (twofold uncertainty range) million metric tons (Mt) of dry biomass. Termites contribute ≈40% of the soil biomass, much more than ants at ≈10%. Our estimate for the global biomass of above-ground arthropods is more uncertain, highlighting a knowledge gap that future research should aim to close. We estimate the combined dry biomass of all terrestrial arthropods at ≈300 Mt (uncertainty range, 100 to 500), similar to the mass of humanity and its livestock. These estimates enhance the quantitative understanding of arthropods in terrestrial ecosystems and provide an initial holistic benchmark on their decline.

The Insecticide Imidacloprid Decreases Nannotrigona Stingless Bee Survival and Food Consumption and Modulates the Expression of Detoxification and Immune-Related Genes

Stingless bees are ecologically and economically important species in the tropics and subtropics, but there has been little research on the characterization of detoxification systems and immune responses within them. This is critical for understanding their responses to, and defenses against, a variety of environmental stresses, including agrochemicals. Therefore, we studied the detoxification and immune responses of a stingless bee, Nanotrigona perilampoides, which is an important stingless bee that is widely distributed throughout Mexico, including urban areas, and has the potential to be used in commercial pollination. We first determined the LC50 of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid for foragers of N. perilampoides, then chronically exposed bees for 10 days to imidacloprid at two field-realistic concentrations, LC10 (0.45 ng/µL) or LC20 (0.74 ng/µL), which are respectively 2.7 and 1.3-fold lower than the residues of imidacloprid that have been found in honey (6 ng/g) in central Mexico. We found that exposing N. perilampoides stingless bees to imidacloprid at these concentrations markedly reduced bee survival and food consumption, revealing the great sensitivity of this stingless bee to the insecticide in comparison to honey bees. The expression of detoxification (GSTD1) and immune-related genes (abaecin, defensin1, and hymenopteacin) in N. perilampoides also changed over time in response to imidacloprid. Gene expression was always lower in bees after 8 days of exposure to imidacloprid (LC10 or LC20) than it was after 4 days. Our results demonstrate that N. perilampoides stingless bees are extremely sensitive to imidacloprid, even at low concentrations, and provide greater insight into how stingless bees respond to pesticide toxicity. This is the first study of its kind to look at detoxification systems and immune responses in Mexican stingless bees, an ecologically and economically important taxon.

First national survey of residues of active substances in honeybee apiaries across Spain between 2012 and 2016

This nationwide monitoring aimed to investigate the prevalence of residues of plant protection products (PPPs) and veterinary medicine products (VMPs) based on random selection of apiaries of Apis mellifera. For a three-year period (2012, 2013 and 2016), this study targeted 306 PPPs, VMPs and other active substances in 442 samples of bee bread honeycomb (BBHC) and 89 samples of honeybees collected from up to 177 apiaries. The results indicate that honeybees were most often exposed to residues of coumaphos, tau-fluvalinate, chlorfenvinphos, and acrinathrin, with a prevalence from a maximum of 98.8% to 49.4% in BBHC samples. Residues of coumaphos, tau-fluvalinate, amitraz (DMF + DMPF), carbendazim and orthophenylphenol were also frequently detected, from a maximum of 55.1% to 13.5% of the honeybee samples. Neonicotinoid residues, namely clothianidin and thiamethoxam, whose outdoor uses in crops are completely banned in EU, were not detected. Imidacloprid was found in 3.4% to 13.3% of samples during 2013 and 2016, respectively. Imidacloprid exceeded its acute toxicity (LD₅₀) value for honey bees in two samples of BBHC. Fipronil was detected in 0.5% of the samples during 2013. The diversity of active substances found (% of different residues analyzed) ranged from 33.9% to 37.2% in BBHC from 2012, 2013 to 2016, and was of 26.5% in honeybees in 2016. In at least 54% of the samples, the total residue load was in the range of 200 to 1500 μg·kg^-1. Up to 50% of BBHC samples were positive for one or two residues. No toxic residues for honeybees were detected in up to 88.8% of bee samples. This systematic surveillance of active substances assisted the evaluation of which target pesticides to look for and provided support to the competent authorities in the bee health decision-making.

BeeGUTS-A Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Model for the Interpretation and Integration of Acute and Chronic Honey Bee Tests

Understanding the survival of honey bees after pesticide exposure is key for environmental risk assessment. Currently, effects on adult honey bees are assessed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development standardized guidelines, such as the acute and chronic oral exposure and acute contact exposure tests. The three different tests are interpreted individually, without consideration that the same compound is investigated in the same species, which should allow for an integrative assessment. In the present study we developed, calibrated, and validated a toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic model with 17 existing data sets on acute and chronic effects for honey bees. The model is based on the generalized unified threshold model for survival (GUTS), which is able to integrate the different exposure regimes, taking into account the physiology of the honey bee: the BeeGUTS model. The model is able to accurately describe the effects over time for all three exposure routes combined within one consistent framework. The model can also be used as a validity check for toxicity values used in honey bee risk assessment and to conduct effect assessments for real-life exposure scenarios. This new integrative approach, moving from single-point estimates of toxicity and exposure to a holistic link between exposure and effect, will allow for a higher confidence of honey bee toxicity assessment in the future. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2193-2201. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

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.

Antimicrobial Activity from Putative Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria for the Biological Control of American and European Foulbrood Diseases

The balance of the gut microbiome is important for the honey bee’s growth and development, immune function and defense against pathogens. The use of a beneficial bacteria-based strategy for the prevention and biocontrol of American foulbrood (AFB) and European foulbrood (EFB) diseases in honey bees offers interesting prospects. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are common inhabitants of the gastrointestinal tract of the honey bee. Among LABs associated with bee gut microbiota, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) and Apilactobacillus kunkeei (formerly classified as Lactobacillus kunkeei) are two of the most abundant species. In this study, four Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains and four Apilactobacillus kunkeei strains, isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) were selected for their in vitro inhibition ability of Paenibacillus larvae ATCC 9545 and Melissococccus plutonius ATCC 35311. In addition, these LABs have been characterized through some biochemical and functional characteristics: cell surface properties (hydrophobicity and auto-aggregation), carbohydrates assimilation and enzymatic activities. The antimicrobial, biochemical and cell surface properties of these LABs have been functional to their candidature as potential probiotics in beekeeping and for the biocontrol of AFB and EFB diseases.

Evaluation of the risks for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in feed for honey bees

The European Commission has asked the EFSA to evaluate the risk for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in honey bee feed. HMF is a degradation product of particular sugars and can be present in bee feed. HMF is of low acute toxicity in bees but causes increased mortality upon chronic exposure. A benchmark dose lower limit 10% (BMDL₁₀) of 1.16 μg HMF per bee per day has been calculated from mortalities observed in a 20‐day study and established as a Reference Point covering also mortality in larvae, drones and queens for which no or insufficient toxicity data were available. Winter bees have a much longer lifespan than summer bees and HMF shows clear time reinforced toxicity (TRT) characteristics. Therefore, additional Reference Point intervals of 0.21–3.1, 0.091–1.1 and 0.019–0.35 µg HMF/bee per day were calculated based on extrapolation to exposure durations of 50, 90 and 180 days, respectively. A total of 219 analytical data of HMF concentrations in bee feed from EU Member States and 88 from Industry were available. Exposure estimates of worker bees and larvae ranged between 0.1 and 0.48, and between 0.1 and 0.51 μg HMF/per day, respectively. They were well below the BMDL₁₀ of 1.16 μg HMF/bee per day, and thus, no concern was identified. However, when accounting for TRT, the probability that exposures were below established reference point intervals was assessed to be extremely unlikely to almost certain depending on exposure duration. A concern for bee health was identified when bees are exposed to HMF contaminated bee feed for several months.

'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.

Establishing realistic exposure estimates of solitary bee larvae via pollen for use in risk assessment

Bees foraging in agricultural habitats can be exposed to plant protection products. To limit the risk of adverse events, a robust risk assessment is needed, which requires reliable estimates for the expected exposure. The exposure pathways to developing solitary bees in particular are not well described and, in the currently proposed form, rely on limited information. To build a scaling model predicting the amount of protein developing solitary bees need based on adult body weight, we used published data on the volume of pollen solitary bees provide for their offspring. This model was tested against and ultimately updated with additional literature data on bee weight and protein content of emerged bees. We rescaled this model, based on the known pollen protein content of bee-visited flowers, to predict the expected amount of pollen a generalist solitary bee would likely provide based on its adult body weight, and tested these predictions in the field. We found overall agreement between the models' predictions and the measured values in the field, but additional data are needed to confirm these initial results. Our study suggests that scaling models in the bee risk assessment could complement existing risk assessment approaches and facilitate the further development of accurate risk characterization for solitary bees; ultimately the models will help to protect them during their foraging activity in agricultural settings. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:308-313. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Sensitivity of Buff-Tailed Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris L.) to Insecticides with Different Mode of Action

Simple Summary

Several neonicotinoid insecticides that were once widely used for pest control are currently banned for outdoor use in the European Union (EU) because they pose a risk to bees. This restriction meant that farmers had to look for alternatives for pest management and use known insecticides or new substances with supposedly more bee-friendly characteristics. We evaluated the toxicity of six insecticides on buff-tailed bumblebee workers (Bombus terrestris): two banned neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, thiacloprid), two pyrethroids (deltamethrin, esfenvalerate), one sulfoximine (sulfoxaflor) and a microbial insecticide based on Bacillus thuringiensis toxins, which are present in genetically modified (Bt) maize. The results obtained show that certain insecticides in use have higher acute toxicity to B. terrestris than some of the banned neonicotinoids.

Abstract

Systemic insecticides are recognized as one of the drivers of the worldwide bee decline as they are exposed to them through multiple pathways. Specifically, neonicotinoids, some of which are banned for outdoor use in the European Union (EU), have been pointed out as a major cause of bee collapse. Thus, farmers have had to look for alternatives for pest control and use known insecticides or new substances reportedly less harmful to bees. We evaluated the oral acute toxicity of six insecticides (three of them systemic: imidacloprid, thiacloprid and sulfoxaflor) with four different modes of action on buff-tailed bumblebee workers (Bombus terrestris): two banned neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, thiacloprid), two pyrethroids (deltamethrin, esfenvalerate), one sulfoximine (sulfoxaflor) and a microbial insecticide based on Bacillus thuringiensis toxins, present in genetically modified (Bt) maize. The microbial insecticide only caused mortality to bumblebee workers at extremely high concentrations, so it is expected that Bt maize does not pose a risk to them. The toxicity of the other five insecticides on bumblebees was, from highest to lowest: imidacloprid, sulfoxaflor, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate and thiacloprid. This outcome suggests that certain insecticides in use are more toxic to B. terrestris than some banned neonicotinoids. Further chronic toxicity studies, under realistic conditions, are necessary for a proper risk assessment.

Using Citronella to Protect Bees (honeybee Apis mellifera L.) from certain Insecticides and Their Nano Formulations

Abstract Experiments were performed investigating citronella (Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt) as a repellent to honeybee Apis mellifera (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Egypt, it was conducted in laboratory in the Department of Entomology and Pesticides Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, to check long-term survival of honeybee when exposed to different nano insecticides alone or combined with citronella at the same examination box for each. In this study, we used a modeling approach regarding survival data of caged worker bees under chronic exposure to four insecticides (Chloropyrophos, Nano-chloropyrophos Imidacloprid, Nano-Imidacloprid) each of them was supplemented in a box alone and in combination with citronella. Having three replicates and five concentrations (100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 ppm). Laboratory bioassay of these insecticides showed that chloropyrophos and nano chloropyrophos were the most toxic at their high dose (500 ppm) with LT50 of 120.98 and 122.02 followed by 132.14 and 136.5 minutes for Imidacloprid and Nano-Imidacloprid, respectively. No consumption occurred by bees to mixed sugar syrup with insecticides in all treatments when citronella was added. These data highly recommended that adding citronella is very effective when nicotinoid pesticides are used to longevity honeybee life and keep bee safe.

The use of ecological models to assess the effects of a plant protection product on ecosystem services provided by an orchard

The objective of this case study was to explore the feasibility of using ecological models for applying an ecosystem services-based approach to environmental risk assessment using currently available data and methodologies. For this we used a 5 step approach: 1) selection of environmental scenario, 2) ecosystem service selection, 3) development of logic chains, 4) selection and application of ecological models and 5) detailed ecosystem service assessment. The study system is a European apple orchard managed according to integrated pest management principles. An organophosphate insecticide was used as the case study chemical. Four ecosystem services are included in this case study: soil quality regulation, pest control, pollination and recreation. Logic chains were developed for each ecosystem service and describe the link between toxicant effects on service providing units and ecosystem services delivery. For the soil quality regulation ecosystem service, springtails and earthworms were the service providing units, for the pest control ecosystem service it was ladybirds, for the pollination ecosystem service it was honeybees and for the recreation ecosystem service it was the meadow brown butterfly. All the ecological models addressed the spatio-temporal magnitude of the direct effects of the insecticide on the service providing units and ecological production functions were used to extrapolate these outcomes to the delivery of ecosystem services. For all ecosystem services a decision on the acceptability of the modelled and extrapolated effects on the service providing units could be made using the protection goals as set by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Developing quantitative ecological production functions for extrapolation of ecosystem services delivery from population endpoints remains one of the major challenges. We feel that the use of ecological models can greatly add to this development, although the further development of existing ecological models, and of new models, is needed for this.

Deposition of dust with active substances in pesticides from treated seeds in adjacent fields during drilling: disentangling the effects of various factors using an 8-year field experiment

The side effects from the use of plant protection products and their potential effects on non-target arthropods (NTAs) such as honey bees, other insects within the vegetation layer and epigeic arthropods nowadays receive more attention. However, uncertainties about the factors driving the deposition of active substances (a.s.) into off-crop areas persist, in particular during sowing of treated seeds. Analysing a highly standardised 8-year field experiment, we assessed the importance of various factors potentially affecting dust drift and deposition of a.s., emitted during the sowing process of treated seeds and deposited on fields adjacent to the drilling field, i.e. on the ground, on flowers, and on nonflowering plant parts. Regarding a.s. deposition, the Heubach a.s. value has a predictive capability, which is independent from all other factors taken into account in this study, and can thus be considered as a scenario-independent measure of potential dust deposition. Petri dish samplers, an established standard method for measuring a.s. deposition, were representative of the results from the plant samplers for a given combination of drilling technique and adjacent crop type. Adjacent crop type is likely to impact on a.s. deposition. The present work will enable a more field-realistic exposure assessment for bees and other NTAs.

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.

Sulfoxaflor and nutritional deficiency synergistically reduce survival and fecundity in bumblebees

A range of anthropogenic factors are causing unprecedented bee declines. Among these drivers the usage of pesticides is believed to be crucial. While the use of key bee-harming insecticides, such as the neonicotinoids, has been reduced by regulatory authorities, novel, less studied substances have occupied their market niche. Understanding the threat of these chemicals to bees is, therefore, crucial to their conservation. Here we focus on sulfoxaflor, a novel insecticide, targeting the same neural receptor as the neonicotinoids. In stark contrast to the growing concerns around its negative impacts on bee health, a recent assessment has resulted in the extension of its authorisations across the USA. However, such assessments may underestimate risks by overlooking interactive impacts of multiple stressors. Here we investigated co-occurring, lethal and sublethal risks of sulfoxaflor and a dietary stress for bumblebees (Bombus terrestris), a key pollinator. Specifically, we employed a novel microcolony design, where, for the first time in bees, pesticide exposure mimicked natural degradation. We orally exposed workers to sulfoxaflor and a sugar-deficient diet in a fully factorial design. Field realistic, worst-case sulfoxaflor exposure caused a sharp increase in bee mortality. At sublethal concentrations, sulfoxaflor negatively affected bee fecundity, but not survival. Nutritional stress reduced bee fecundity and synergistically or additively aggravated impacts of sulfoxaflor on bee survival, egg laying and larval production. Our data show that non-mitigated label uses of sulfoxaflor may have major, yet severely neglected effects on bumblebee health, which may be exacerbated by nutritional stress. By unravelling mechanistic interactions of synergistic risks, our study highlights the need to overcome inherent limitations of Environmental Risk Assessment schemes, which, being based on a "single stressor paradigm", may fail to inform policymakers of the real risks of pesticide use.

Identifying ecological production functions for use in ecosystem services-based environmental risk assessment of chemicals

There is increasing research interest in the application of the ecosystem services (ES) concept in the environmental risk assessment of chemicals to support formulating and operationalising regulatory environmental protection goals and making environmental risk assessment more policy- and value-relevant. This requires connecting ecosystem structure and processes to ecosystem function and henceforth to provision of ecosystem goods and services and their economic valuation. Ecological production functions (EPFs) may help to quantify these connections in a transparent manner and to predict ES provision based on function-related descriptors for service providing species, communities, ecosystems or habitats. We review scientific literature for EPFs to evaluate availability across provisioning and regulation and maintenance services (CICES v5.1 classification). We found quantitative production functions for nearly all ES, often complemented with economic valuation of physical or monetary flows. We studied the service providing units in these EPFs to evaluate the potential for extrapolation of toxicity data for test species obtained from standardised testing to ES provision. A broad taxonomic representation of service providers was established, but quantitative models directly linking standard test species to ES provision were extremely scarce. A pragmatic way to deal with this data gap would be the use of proxies for related taxa and stepwise functional extrapolation to ES provision and valuation, which we conclude possible for most ES. We suggest that EPFs may be used in defining specific protection goals (SPGs), and illustrate, using pollination as an example, the availability of information for the ecological entity and attribute dimensions of SPGs. Twenty-five pollination EPFs were compiled from the literature for biological entities ranging from 'colony' to 'habitat', with 75% referring to 'functional group'. With about equal representation of the attributes 'function', 'abundance' and 'diversity', SPGs for pollination therefore would seem best substantiated by EPFs at the level of functional group.

The Transcriptomic Landscape of Molecular Effects after Sublethal Exposure to Dinotefuran on Apis mellifera

Simple Summary

Apis mellifera is one of the most important pollinator communities in nature. Insecticide residues in pollen and nectar, due to their wide use, may harm bees. Thus, it is crucial to provide novel insights into the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on pollinators for protecting bees and maintaining a long-term stable ecological environment. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect and the mechanisms underlying bees impaired by dinotefuran. In the present study, for the first time, we found the mRNA expression profile of bees changes after treatment with sublethal doses of dinotefuran. Overall, our findings enhance understanding of the molecular mechanisms that underly physiological and behavioural damage for bees after dinotefuran exposure.

Abstract

The decreasing number of bees is a global ecological problem. With the advancement of agricultural modernisation, the large-scale use of neonicotinoid insecticides is one of the main factors leading to the decline of bees. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect and the mechanisms underlying bees impaired by dinotefuran. Acute (48 h) oral toxicity tests showed that a 5% lethal concentration (LC₅) was 0.220 mg/L, and a 20% lethal concentration (LC₂₀) was 0.458 mg/L. The gene expression profile shows that when compared with the control group, the LC₅ group induced 206 significantly upregulated, differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and 363 significantly downregulated DEGs, while the LC₂₀ group induced 180 significantly upregulated DEGs and 419 significantly downregulated DEGs. Significantly, transcriptomic analysis revealed DEGs involved in immunity, detoxification, and the nervous system, such as antimicrobial peptides, vitellogenin, synaptotagmin-10, AChE-2, and nAChRa9. Furthermore, Gene Ontology (GO) annotation and Kyoto Encyclopaedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis revealed that DEGs were enriched in amino acid and fatty acid biosynthesis and metabolism pathways. Collectively, our findings will help clarify the deleterious physiological and behavioural impacts of dinotefuran on bees and provide a basis for future research on the mechanisms underlying bees impaired by dinotefuran.

Effects of Insecticides and Microbiological Contaminants on Apis mellifera Health

Over the past two decades, there has been an alarming decline in the number of honey bee colonies. This phenomenon is called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Bee products play a significant role in human life and have a huge impact on agriculture, therefore bees are an economically important species. Honey has found its healing application in various sectors of human life, as well as other bee products such as royal jelly, propolis, and bee pollen. There are many putative factors of CCD, such as air pollution, GMO, viruses, or predators (such as wasps and hornets). It is, however, believed that pesticides and microorganisms play a huge role in the mass extinction of bee colonies. Insecticides are chemicals that are dangerous to both humans and the environment. They can cause enormous damage to bees' nervous system and permanently weaken their immune system, making them vulnerable to other factors. Some of the insecticides that negatively affect bees are, for example, neonicotinoids, coumaphos, and chlorpyrifos. Microorganisms can cause various diseases in bees, weakening the health of the colony and often resulting in its extinction. Infection with microorganisms may result in the need to dispose of the entire hive to prevent the spread of pathogens to other hives. Many aspects of the impact of pesticides and microorganisms on bees are still unclear. The need to deepen knowledge in this matter is crucial, bearing in mind how important these animals are for human life.

The science behind the ban: the outstanding impact of ecotoxicological research on the regulation of neonicotinoids

The restrictions and bans imposed on insecticides of the neonicotinoid family in Europe were legitimized by emerging knowledge about their impact on the health of bee populations. That such knowledge was articulated and acted upon in the regulatory space is puzzling, given the standard forms of regulatory science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge is used in this very space. This short article reviews research in social science about regulation and regulatory knowledge, to help understand how research on bee decline opened the possibility of wide regulatory restrictions on neonicotinoids.

Conflicts of interest and improvement through peer review: the case of IPBES report on pollinators

To understand the real causes of disorders and abnormal mortalities of bees (honeybees and wild bees) in the world, the scientific method requires that each category of potential stressors be analyzed in a balanced manner. In this article, I show that the first version of the section dealing with the evaluation of the toxic effects of pesticides on bees, in the IPBES assessment report on pollinators and pollination, revealed an incomplete and biased literature review in many places, especially downplaying the risks that pesticides in general, and neonicotinoids in particular, pose for pollinating insects. Then, according to the rules of IPBES, an independent peer review by external experts of this first version allowed the published report to be more in line with the reality of scientific knowledge, which shows, for example, that sublethal effects of pesticide exposure can impair the ability of bees to provide pollination. However, some other key points remain unchanged in the published version.

Extrapolating Acute Contact Bee Sensitivity to Insecticides Based on Body Weight Using a Phylogenetically Informed Interspecies Scaling Framework

Plant protection products, including insecticides, are important for global food production but can have adverse effects on nontarget organisms including bees. Historically, research investigating such effects has focused mainly on the honeybee (Apis mellifera), whereas less information is available for non-Apis bees. Consequently, a comprehensive hazard (sensitivity) assessment for the majority of bees is lacking, which in turn hinders accurate risk characterization and consequently bee protection. Interspecies sensitivity extrapolation based on body weight might be a way to improve the situation, but in the past such approaches often ignored the phylogenetic background of the species used, which in turn potentially reduces the robustness of such results. Published acute contact sensitivity data (median lethal dose per bee) of bees to insecticides, their body weight, and their phylogenetic background were used to build interspecies scaling models to predict bee sensitivity based on their weight. The results indicate that 1) bee body weight is a predictor of acute contact bee sensitivity to a range of insecticides, and 2) phylogeny (nonindependence of data points) needs to be considered in cross-species analysis, although it does not always confound the observed effects.  Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:2044-2052. © 2021 SETAC.

Physiological effects of the interaction between Nosema ceranae and sequential and overlapping exposure to glyphosate and difenoconazole in the honey bee Apis mellifera

Pathogens and pollutants, such as pesticides, are potential stressors to all living organisms, including honey bees. Herbicides and fungicides are among the most prevalent pesticides in beehive matrices, and their interaction with Nosema ceranae is not well understood. In this study, the interactions between N. ceranae, the herbicide glyphosate and the fungicide difenoconazole were studied under combined sequential and overlapping exposure to the pesticides at a concentration of 0.1 µg/L in food. In the sequential exposure experiment, newly emerged bees were exposed to the herbicide from day 3 to day 13 after emerging and to the fungicide from day 13 to day 23. In the overlapping exposure experiment, bees were exposed to the herbicide from day 3 to day 13 and to the fungicide from day 7 to day 17. Infection by Nosema in early adult life stages (a few hours post emergence) greatly affected the survival of honey bees and elicited much higher mortality than was induced by pesticides either alone or in combination. Overlapping exposure to both pesticides induced higher mortality than was caused by sequential or individual exposure. Overlapping, but not sequential, exposure to pesticides synergistically increased the adverse effect of N. ceranae on honey bee longevity. The combination of Nosema and pesticides had a strong impact on physiological markers of the nervous system, detoxification, antioxidant defenses and social immunity of honey bees.

The development of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis is affected by some insecticide agrochemicals at environmentally relevant concentrations

Solitary bees provide essential pollination services for many arable crops, but are prone to global decline. Agricultural intensification, which is connected with pesticide usage, is among major threats to bees and, thus, to the food security and ecosystem stability. As it may not be possible to cease pesticide usage currently because of the growing demand for food, it is crucial to understand the pesticide toxicities to bees for better protection of pollinator populations. The majority of studies have focused on social bees, and those on solitary bees studied effects of adult exposure, whereas these bees are also likely to be exposed as larvae via the consumption of contaminated pollen. Here, the effects of three commonly used insecticide-based plant protection products on the development of the solitary bee, Osmia bicornis (red mason bee), were studied by exposing larvae to insecticide-contaminated multifloral pollen. The tested insecticides were: Dursban480EC, containing the organophosphate chlorpyrifos (CHP), Sherpa100EC, containing the pyrethroid cypermethrin (CYP), and Mospilan20SP with the neonicotinoid acetamiprid (ACT). When compared to the control larvae fed with uncontaminated-pollen, both CHP and CYP significantly reduced the O. bicornis larval survival and their body mass at all tested concentrations. In contrast, ACT did not affect either larval survival or body mass, but the length of larval stage to cocoon formation was significantly shortened compared to controls. None of studied insecticides affected the mass of cocooned individuals. However, at least 80% of individuals exposed to any of the tested insecticides died before reaching the adult stage, whereas 43% of the controls emerged successfully after overwintering. Although no clear monotonic dose-response relationships were found, our study showed that at least some insecticide formulations affect the development of O. bicornis even at concentrations actually found in pollen in the field, indicating an urgent need for revising current pesticide usage recommendations.

The threat of veterinary medicinal products and biocides on pollinators: A One Health perspective

The One Health approach acknowledges that human health is firmly linked to animal and environmental health. It involves using animals such as bees and other pollinators as sentinels for environmental contamination or biological indicators. Beekeepers noticed intoxications of apiaries located in the vicinity of sheep and cattle farms, which led to the suspicion of bees' intoxication by the products used for livestock: veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) and Biocides, confirmed by laboratory analysis. We review the legal context of VMPs and Biocidal products considering Europe as a case study, and identify shortcomings at the environmental level. We describe the possible ways these products could intoxicate bees in the vicinity of livestock farms. We also illustrate the way they may impact non-target species. The cases of ivermectin and abamectin as VMPs, deltamethrin and permethrin as Biocides are considered as case studies. We show bees can be exposed to new and unrecognized routes of exposure to these chemicals, and demonstrate that their application in livestock farming can affect the survival of pollinators, such as bees. We conclude that: (1) figures on the marketing/use of these chemicals should be harmonized, centralized and publicly available, (2) research should be devoted to clarifying how pollinators are exposed to VMPs and Biocides, (3) toxicity studies on bees should be carried out, and (4) pollinators should be considered as non-targeted species concerning the environmental risk assessment before their marketing authorization. We propose the term "Multi-use substances" for active ingredients with versatile use.

Biosafety of bee pollinators in genetically modified agro-ecosystems: Current approach and further development in the EU

Bee pollinators are an important guild delivering a fundamental input to European agriculture due to the ecological service they provide to crops in addition to the direct economic revenues from apiculture. Bee populations are declining in Europe as a result of the effects of several environmental stressors, both natural and of anthropic origin. Efforts are ongoing in the European Union (EU) to improve monitoring and management of pollinator populations to arrest further declines. Genetically modified (GM) crops are currently cultivated in a limited area in Europe, and an environmental risk assessment (ERA) is required prior to their authorization for cultivation. The possible impacts of GM crops on pollinators are deemed relevant for the ERA. Existing ecotoxicological studies indicate that traits currently expressed in insect-resistant GM plants are unlikely to represent a risk for pollinators. However, new mechanisms of insect resistance are being introduced into GM plants, including novel combinations of Cry toxins and double strand RNA (dsRNA), and an ERA is required to consider lethal and sublethal effects of these new products on nontarget species, including insect pollinators. The evaluation of indirect effects linked to the changes in management practices (e.g. for herbicide-tolerant GM crops) is an important component of EU regulations and a requirement for ERA. This paper reviews current approaches used to test the sensitivity of pollinators to GM plants and their products to determine whether sufficient data are being provided on novel GM plants to satisfy EU risk assessment requirements. © 2021 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

A systems-based approach to the environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees

The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems-based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent-based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part 2: impacts on organisms and ecosystems

New information on the lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on organisms is presented in this review, complementing the previous Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) in 2015. The high toxicity of these systemic insecticides to invertebrates has been confirmed and expanded to include more species and compounds. Most of the recent research has focused on bees and the sublethal and ecological impacts these insecticides have on pollinators. Toxic effects on other invertebrate taxa also covered predatory and parasitoid natural enemies and aquatic arthropods. Little new information has been gathered on soil organisms. The impact on marine and coastal ecosystems is still largely uncharted. The chronic lethality of neonicotinoids to insects and crustaceans, and the strengthened evidence that these chemicals also impair the immune system and reproduction, highlights the dangers of this particular insecticidal class (neonicotinoids and fipronil), with the potential to greatly decrease populations of arthropods in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Sublethal effects on fish, reptiles, frogs, birds, and mammals are also reported, showing a better understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity of these insecticides in vertebrates and their deleterious impacts on growth, reproduction, and neurobehaviour of most of the species tested. This review concludes with a summary of impacts on the ecosystem services and functioning, particularly on pollination, soil biota, and aquatic invertebrate communities, thus reinforcing the previous WIA conclusions (van der Sluijs et al. 2015).

Contact toxicity of three insecticides for use in tier I pesticide risk assessments with Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae)

The current pesticide risk assessment paradigm may not adequately protect solitary bees as it focuses primarily on the honey bee (Apis mellifera). The alfalfa leafcutting bee (Megachile rotundata) is a potential surrogate species for use in pesticide risk assessment for solitary bees in North America. However, the toxicity of potential toxic reference standards to M. rotundata will need to be determined before pesticide risk assessment tests (tier I trials) can be implemented. Therefore, we assessed the acute topical toxicity and generated LD50 values for three insecticides: dimethoate (62.08 ng a.i./bee), permethrin (50.01 ng a.i./bee), and imidacloprid (12.82 ng a.i/bee). The variation in the mass of individual bees had a significant but small effect on these toxicity estimates. Overall, the toxicity of these insecticides to M. rotundata were within the 10-fold safety factor currently used with A. mellifera toxicity estimates from tier I trials to estimate risk to other bee species. Therefore, tier I pesticide risk assessments with solitary bees may not be necessary, and efforts could be directed to developing more realistic, higher-tier pesticide risk assessment trials for solitary bees.

Pesticide and veterinary drug residues in Belgian beeswax: Occurrence, toxicity, and risk to honey bees

Pesticide and veterinary drug residues are one of the stress factors affecting bee health and mortality. To investigate the occurrence, the concentration and the toxicity risk to bees of pesticide residues in four different types of beeswax (brood comb wax, recycled comb wax, honey comb wax, and cappings wax), 182 samples were collected from apiaries located all over the Belgian territories, during spring 2016 and analysed by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS for the presence of 294 chemical residues. The toxicity risk to bees expressed as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) was calculated for each wax sample, according to two scenarios with different tau-fluvalinate LD₅₀ values. Residues showing the highest prevalence were correlated to bee mortality in a multivariate logistic regression model and a risk-based model was used to predict colony bee mortality. Altogether, 54 different pesticide and veterinary drug residues were found in the four types of beeswax. The residues with a higher likelihood to be retained in beeswax are applied in-hive or with a high lipophilic nature. The multivariate logistic regression model showed a statistically significant influence of chlorfenvinphos on bee mortality. All our results indicated that cappings wax was substantially less contaminated. This national survey on beeswax contamination provides guidelines on the re-use of beeswax by beekeepers and shows the necessity to introduce maximum residue levels for global trade in beeswax. An online tool was developed to enable beekeepers and wax traders to estimate the risk to honey bee health associated with contaminated wax.

Integrating QSAR models predicting acute contact toxicity and mode of action profiling in honey bees (A. mellifera): Data curation using open source databases, performance testing and validation

Honey bees (Apis mellifera) provide key ecosystem services as pollinators bridging agriculture, the food chain and ecological communities, thereby ensuring food production and security. Ecological risk assessment of single Plant Protection Products (PPPs) requires an understanding of the exposure and toxicity. In silico tools such as QSAR models can play a major role for the prediction of structural, physico-chemical and pharmacokinetic properties of chemicals as well as toxicity of single and multiple chemicals. Here, the first integrative honey bee QSAR model has been developed for PPPs using EFSA's OpenFoodTox, US-EPA ECOTOX and Pesticide Properties DataBase i) to predict acute contact toxicity (LD₅₀) and ii) to profile the Mode of Action (MoA) of pesticides active substances. Three different classification-based and four regression-based models were developed and tested for their performance, thus identifying two models providing the most reliable predictions based on k-NN algorithm. The two-category QSAR model (toxic/non-toxic; n = 411) was validated using sensitivity (=0.93), specificity (=0.85), balanced accuracy (=0.90), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC = 0.78) as statistical parameters. The regression-based model (n = 113) was validated for its reliability and robustness (R² = 0.74; MAE = 0.52). Current study proposes the MoA profiling for 113 pesticides active substances and the first harmonised MoA classification scheme for acute contact toxicity in honey bees, including LD_50s data points from three different databases. The classification allows to further define MoAs and the target site of PPPs active substances, thus enabling regulators and scientists to refine chemical grouping and toxicity extrapolations for single chemicals and component-based mixture risk assessment of multiple chemicals. Relevant future perspectives are briefly addressed to integrate MoA, adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) and toxicokinetic information for the refinement of single-chemical/combined toxicity predictions and risk estimates at different levels of biological organization in the bee health context.

Predicting acute contact toxicity of organic binary mixtures in honey bees (A. mellifera) through innovative QSAR models

Pollinators such as honey bees are of considerable importance, because of the crucial pollination services they provide for food crops and wild plants. Since bees are exposed to a wide range of multiple chemicals "mixtures" both of anthropogenic (e.g. plant protection products) and natural origin (e.g. plant toxins), understanding their combined toxicity is critical. Although honey bees are employed worldwide as surrogate species for Apis and non-Apis bees in toxicity tests, it is practically unfeasible to perform in vivo tests for all mixtures of chemicals. Therefore, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) models can be developed using available data and can provide useful tools to predict such combined toxicity. Here, three different QSAR models within the CORAL software have been calibrated and validated for honey bees (A. mellifera) to predict the acute contact mixtures potency (LD_50-mix), in two regression based-models, and the nature of combined toxicity (synergism / non-synergism) in a classification-based model. Experimental data on binary mixtures (n = 123) (LD_50-mix) including dose response data (n = 97) and corresponding Toxic Unit values were retrieved from EFSA databases. The models were built using the principle of extraction of attributes from SMILES (or quasi-SMILES) while calculating so-called correlation weights for these attributes using Monte Carlo techniques. The two regression models were validated for their reliability and robustness (R² = 0.89, CCC = 0.92, Q² = 0.81; R² = 0.87, CCC = 0.89, Q² = 0.75). The classification model was validated using sensitivity (=0.86), specificity (=1), accuracy (=0.96), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC = 0.90) as qualitative statistical validation parameters. Results indicate that these QSAR models successfully predict acute contact toxicity of binary mixtures in honey bees and can support prioritisation of multiple chemicals of concerns. Data gaps and further development of QSAR models for honey bees are highlighted particularly for chronic and sub-lethal effects.

Reduction of variability for the assessment of side effects of toxicants on honeybees and understanding drivers for colony development

The statistical power of studies for the assessment of side effects of toxicants on honeybees conducted according to current guidelines is often limited. A new test design and modified field methods have therefore been developed to decrease uncertainty and variability and to be able to detect small effects. The new test design comprises a monitoring phase (before the tunnel phase) for the selection of honeybee colonies and modified methods, which include assessments of colony strength, an evaluation of the cell content of all cells of hives using photos and digital analysis, and the use of video recordings for the assessment of foraging activity and forager mortality. With the proposed new study design and the modified field methods variability between hives was considerably reduced, which resulted in a marked reduction of the minimum detectable difference (MDD). This makes it possible to address the Specific Protection Goals defined by the European Food Safety Authority and to gain unprecedented insight into the development of hives and driving factors.

Investigating combined toxicity of binary mixtures in bees: Meta-analysis of laboratory tests, modelling, mechanistic basis and implications for risk assessment

Bees are exposed to a wide range of multiple chemicals "chemical mixtures" from anthropogenic (e.g. plant protection products or veterinary products) or natural origin (e.g. mycotoxins, plant toxins). Quantifying the relative impact of multiple chemicals on bee health compared with other environmental stressors (e.g. varroa, viruses, and nutrition) has been identified as a priority to support the development of holistic risk assessment methods. Here, extensive literature searches and data collection of available laboratory studies on combined toxicity data for binary mixtures of pesticides and non-chemical stressors has been performed for honey bees (Apis mellifera), wild bees (Bombus spp.) and solitary bee species (Osmia spp.). From 957 screened publications, 14 publications provided 218 binary mixture toxicity data mostly for acute mortality (lethal dose: LD₅₀) after contact exposure (61%), with fewer studies reporting chronic oral toxicity (20%) and acute oral LC₅₀ values (19%). From the data collection, available dose response data for 92 binary mixtures were modelled using a Toxic Unit (TU) approach and the MIXTOX modelling tool to test assumptions of combined toxicity i.e. concentration addition (CA), and interactions (i.e. synergism, antagonism). The magnitude of interactions was quantified as the Model Deviation Ratio (MDR). The CA model applied to 17% of cases while synergism and antagonism were observed for 72% (MDR > 1.25) and 11% (MDR < 0.83) respectively. Most synergistic effects (55%) were observed as interactions between sterol-biosynthesis-inhibiting (SBI) fungicides and insecticide/acaricide. The mechanisms behind such synergistic effects of binary mixtures in bees are known to involve direct cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibition, resulting in an increase in internal dose and toxicity of the binary mixture. Moreover, bees are known to have the lowest number of CYP copies and other detoxification enzymes in the insect kingdom. In the light of these findings, occurrence of these binary mixtures in relevant crops (frequency and concentrations) would need to be investigated. Addressing this exposure dimension remains critical to characterise the likelihood and plausibility of such interactions to occur under field realistic conditions. Finally, data gaps and further work for the development of risk assessment methods to assess multiple stressors in bees including chemicals and non-chemical stressors in bees are discussed.

The Impact of Pesticides on Flower-Visiting Insects: A Review with Regard to European Risk Assessment

Flower-visiting insects (FVIs) are an ecologically diverse group of mobile, flying species that should be protected from pesticide effects according to European policy. However, there is an ongoing decline of FVI species, partly caused by agricultural pesticide applications. Therefore, the risk assessment framework needs to be improved. We synthesized the peer-reviewed literature on FVI groups and their ecology, habitat, exposure to pesticides, and subsequent effects. The results show that FVIs are far more diverse than previously thought. Their habitat, the entire agricultural landscape, is potentially contaminated with pesticides through multiple pathways. Pesticide exposure of FVIs at environmentally realistic levels can cause population-relevant adverse effects. This knowledge was used to critically evaluate the European regulatory framework of exposure and effect assessment. The current risk assessment should be amended to incorporate specific ecological properties of FVIs, that is, traits. We present data-driven tools to improve future risk assessments by making use of trait information. There are major knowledge gaps concerning the general investigation of groups other than bees, the collection of comprehensive data on FVI groups and their ecology, linking habitat to FVI exposure, and study of previously neglected complex population effects. This is necessary to improve our understanding of FVIs and facilitate the development of a more protective FVI risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:2355-2370. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Belgian case study on flumethrin residues in beeswax: Possible impact on honeybee and prediction of the maximum daily intake for consumers

To assess the health risk posed by flumethrin residues in beeswax to honeybees and honey consumers, 124 wax samples randomly distributed in Belgium were analysed for flumethrin residues using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. The risk posed by flumethrin residues in beeswax to honeybee health was assessed through the calculation of a non-pondered and a pondered Hazard Quotient by the prevalence rate of flumethrin considering an oral or topical exposure. No statistical difference was found when comparing both the average flumethrin residues concentrations and contact and oral pondered hazard quotients between apiaries with lower and equal or higher than 10% of colony loss. Flumethrin residues estimated daily intake by Belgian consumers through honey and wax ingestion was estimated via a deterministic (worst-case scenario) and a probabilistic approach. The probabilistic approach was not possible for beeswax consumption due to the lack of individual consumption data. The highest estimated exposure was <0.1% of the theoretical maximum daily intake for both approaches, meaning no risk for human health.

Assessment of risk to hoary squash bees (Peponapis pruinosa) and other ground-nesting bees from systemic insecticides in agricultural soil

Using the hoary squash bee (Peponapis pruinosa) as a model, we provide the first probabilistic risk assessment of exposure to systemic insecticides in soil for ground-nesting bees. To assess risk in acute and chronic exposure scenarios in Cucurbita and field crops, concentrations of clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid (neonicotinoids) and chlorantraniliprole (anthranilic diamide) in cropped soil were plotted to produce an environmental exposure distribution for each insecticide. The probability of exceedance of several exposure endpoints (LC50s) was compared to an acceptable risk threshold (5%). In Cucurbita crops, under acute exposure, risk to hoary squash bees was below 5% for honey bee LC50s for all residues evaluated but exceeded 5% for clothianidin and imidacloprid using a solitary bee LC50. For Cucurbita crops in the chronic exposure scenario, exposure risks for clothianidin and imidacloprid exceeded 5% for all endpoints, and exposure risk for chlorantraniliprole was below 5% for all endpoints. In field crops, risk to ground-nesting bees was high from clothianidin in all exposure scenarios and high for thiamethoxam and imidacloprid under chronic exposure scenarios. Risk assessments for ground-nesting bees should include exposure impacts from pesticides in soil and could use the hoary squash bee as an ecotoxicology model.

Impact of Biotic and Abiotic Stressors on Managed and Feral Bees

Large-scale declines in bee abundance and species richness over the last decade have sounded an alarm, given the crucial pollination services that bees provide. Population dips have specifically been noted for both managed and feral bee species. The simultaneous increased cultivation of bee-dependent agricultural crops has given rise to additional concern. As a result, there has been a surge in scientific research investigating the potential stressors impacting bees. A group of environmental and anthropogenic stressors negatively impacting bees has been isolated. Habitat destruction has diminished the availability of bee floral resources and nest habitats, while massive monoculture plantings have limited bee access to a variety of pollens and nectars. The rapid spread and increased resistance buildup of various bee parasites, pathogens, and pests to current control methods are implicated in deteriorating bee health. Similarly, many pesticides that are widely applied on agricultural crops and within beehives are toxic to bees. The global distribution of honey bee colonies (including queens with attendant bees) and bumble bee colonies from crop to crop for pollination events has been linked with increased pathogen stress and increased competition with native bee species for limited resources. Climatic alterations have disrupted synchronous bee emergence with flower blooming and reduced the availability of diverse floral resources, leading to bee physiological adaptations. Interactions amongst multiple stressors have created colossal maladies hitting bees at one time, and in some cases delivering additive impacts. Initiatives including the development of wild flower plantings and assessment of pesticide toxicity to bees have been undertaken in efforts to ameliorate current bee declines. In this review, recent findings regarding the impact of these stressors on bees and strategies for mitigating them are discussed.

Hazard of a neonicotinoid insecticide on the homing flight of the honeybee depends on climatic conditions and Varroa infestation

The paradigm for all toxicological bioassays in the risk assessment of pesticide registration reflects the principle that experimental conditions should be controlled to avoid any other factors that may affect the endpoint measures. As honeybee colonies can be frequently exposed to bio-aggressors in real conditions, often concomitantly with pesticides, co-exposure to pesticide/bio-aggressors is becoming a concern for regulatory authorities. We investigated the effects of the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam on the homing performances of foragers emerging from colonies differentiated by health status (infestation with Varroa destructor mites, microsporidian parasite Nosema spp. and Deformed Wing Virus). We designed a homing test that has been recently identified to fill a regulatory gap in the field evaluations of sublethal doses of pesticides before their registration. We also assessed the effect of temperature as an environmental factor. Our results showed that the Varroa mite exacerbates homing failure (HF) caused by the insecticide, whereas high temperatures reduce insecticide-induced HF. Through an analytical Effective Dose (ED) approach, predictive modeling results showed that, for instance, ED level of an uninfested colony, can be divided by 3.3 when the colony is infested by 5 Varroa mites per 100 bees and at a temperature of 24 °C. Our results suggest that the health status of honeybee colonies and climatic context should be targeted for a thorough risk assessment.

A review of the factors that influence pesticide residues in pollen and nectar: Future research requirements for optimising the estimation of pollinator exposure

In recent years, the impact of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) on insect pollinator decline has stimulated significant amounts of research, as well as political and public interest. PPP residues have been found in various bee-related matrices, resulting in governmental bodies worldwide releasing guidance documents on methods for the assessment of the overall risk of PPPs to different bee species. An essential part of these risk assessments are PPP residues found in pollen and nectar, as they represent a key route of exposure. However, PPP residue values in these matrices exhibit large variations and are not available for many PPPs and crop species combinations, which results in inaccurate estimations and uncertainties in risk evaluation. Additionally, residue studies on pollen and nectar are expensive and practically challenging. An extrapolation between different cropping scenarios and PPPs is not yet justified, as the behaviour of PPPs in pollen and nectar is poorly understood. Therefore, this review aims to contribute to a better knowledge and understanding of the fate of PPP residues in pollen and nectar and to outline knowledge gaps and future research needs. The literature suggests that four primary factors, the crop type, the application method, the physicochemical properties of a compound and the environmental conditions have the greatest influence on PPP residues in pollen and nectar. However, these factors consist of many sub-factors and initial effects may be disguised by different sampling methodologies, impeding their exact characterisation. Moreover, knowledge about these factors is ambiguous and restricted to a few compounds and plant species. We propose that future research should concentrate on identifying relationships and common features amongst various PPP applications and crops, as well as an overall quantification of the described parameters; in order to enable a reliable estimation of PPP residues in pollen, nectar and other bee matrices.

Guidance on harmonised methodologies for human health, animal health and ecological risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals

This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1589/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1602/full

Comparison of Pesticide Exposure in Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Implications for Risk Assessments

To date, regulatory pesticide risk assessments have relied on the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as a surrogate test species for estimating the risk of pesticide exposure to all bee species. However, honey bees and non-Apis bees may differ in their susceptibility and exposure to pesticides. In 2017, a workshop ('Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-Apis Bees') was held to assess if honey bee risk assessment frameworks are reflective of non-Apis bee pesticide exposure. In this article, we summarize the workshop discussions on bumble bees (Bombus spp.). We review the life history and foraging behavior of bumble bees and honey bees and discuss how these traits may influence routes and levels of exposure for both taxa. Overall, the major pesticide exposure routes for bumble bees and honey bees are similar; however, bumble bees face additional exposure routes (direct exposure of foraging queens and exposure of larvae and adults to soil residues). Furthermore, bumble bees may receive comparatively higher pesticide doses via contact or oral exposure. We conclude that honey bee pesticide risk assessments may not always be protective of bumble bees, especially queens, in terms of exposure. Data needed to reliably quantify pesticide exposure for bumble bees (e.g., food consumption rates, soil residue levels) are lacking. Addressing these knowledge gaps will be crucial before bumble bee exposure can be incorporated into the pesticide risk assessment process. Because bumble bees exhibit appreciable interspecific variation in colony and behavioral characteristics, data relevant to pesticide exposure should be generated for multiple species.