Search

The publication of the proposed EFSA risk assessment guidance document of plant protection products for pollinators highlighted that there are no study designs for non-Apis pollinators available. Since no official guidelines exist for semi-field testing at present, protocols were proposed by the ICPPR non-Apis working group and two years of ring-testing were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to develop a general test set-up. The ringtest design was based on the draft EFSA guidance document, OEPP/EPPO Guideline No. 170 and results of discussions regarding testing solitary bees and bumble bees during the meetings of the ICPPR non-Apis workgroup. Ring-tests were conducted with two different test organisms, one representative of a social bumble bee species (Bombus terrestris L; Hymenoptera, Apidae) and one representative of a solitary bee species (Osmia bicornis L; Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). The species are common species in Europe, commercially available and widely used for pollination services. Several laboratories participated in the higher-tier ring tests. 15 semi-field tests were conducted with bumble bees and 16 semi-field tests were done with solitary bees in 2016 and 2017. Two treatment groups were always included in the ringtests: an untreated control (water treated) and the treatment with dimethoate as a toxic reference item (optional other i.e. brood-affecting substances fenoxycarb or diflubenzuron). The toxic reference items were chosen based on their mode of action and long term experience in honey bee testing. A summary of the ringtest results will be given and the recommendations for the two semi-field test designs will be presented.

In addition to other assessments, the EFSA bee guidance document (2013) requires the risk assessment of plant protection products on honey bee larvae. At the time the EFSA GD was finalized, no data on honey bee larvae were available due to absence of suitable methods. That is why in 2013 the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) perfomed an impact analysis of the new EFSA risk assessment, using extrapolated endpoints derived from acute oral honey bee endpoints. Today, a number of honey bee larvae toxicity studies (138 active substances or formulated products) have been conducted according to the newly developed testing methods for single exposure (OECD TG 237) repeated exposure studies until the end of the larval development (D7/D8) and repeated exposure testing (OECD GD 239) until adult hatch (D22). These experimental data have been used to determine the ‘pass rates’ for 215 worst case uses (72 fungicide spray and solid uses, 91 herbicide spray uses, incl. 8 PGR uses and in total 52 insecticide spray and solid uses, incl. 2 nematicide and 3 IGR uses) according to the EFSA Bee GD and to compare with the original ECPA impact analysis. As standardized test methods for non- Apis bees larvae were not available, risk assessment according to EFSA for bumblebees and solitary bees based on the honey bee endpoint as surrogate corrected by a safety factor of 10. Morevoer, the sensitivity of the NOEDs at D8 and D22 in repeated exposure (D 22) studies were analysed. Overall, the toxicity of fungicides and herbicides to honey bee larvae (expressed as means and medians of NOED and LD50 values) was moderate to low, while insecticides as expected displayed stronger toxicity. Moreover, the endpoints for herbicides were on average a factor of 2 higher than fungicides which ranges within the normal biological variability (factor of 3). In addition, it is unclear, if the difference is related to a slightly higher toxicity or other factors like different physical chemical properties (e.g. lower solubility). For insecticides, toxicity was about 125 (based on medians) and 6 to 8 (based on means) times higher than herbicides. In the screening risk assessment according to EFSA Bee GD the majority of fungicide (83.3%) and herbicide (95.6%) uses passed the risk assessment for larvae; whereas, for all insecticide uses thr pass rate was about 29%. In the Tier 1 risk assessment, these pass rates slightly increased and were even higher in the ‘treated crop’ and ‘weed in the field’ scenarios for fungicide and herbicide uses, almost being 100%. Pass rates for insecticide uses did not improve very much and amounted to be about 42% for both scenarios. When basing the risk assessment of bumblebee and solitary bee larvae on 1/10th of the honey bee larval endpoint, the majority of active substances and their respective products will fail the screening (overall about 96%) and Tier 1 risk assessment (overall about 90%). Alternative risk assessment approaches proposed by ECPA (e.g. following the EPPO approach; ECPA Option 1 using refinement options and more representative assumptions) or comparing an assummed exposure concentration to the NOEC (ECPA Option 2) led to a slight increase (Option 1) or even no differences in the pass rates (Option 2a) compared to EFSA Tier 1 risk assessment. Thus both, the standard risk assessment according to the EFSA Bee GD as well as the alternative ECPA Option 1 and 2 result in a clear distinction between products with high toxicity (insecticides) vs. non-toxic products (herbicides and fungicides) for the honey bee risk assessment. The sensitivity analysis of repeated exposure studies according OECD GD 239 indicated that in most cases toxicity did not increase during the pupation period between D8 and D22. Thus, the larval growing period between D3 and D8 represents the most sensitive period of the pre-imaginal development.

This study brings together data from a series of local pollinator surveys undertaken in major conventionally-managed agricultural crops in Brazil to determine the presence and abundance of bees visiting flowers within crops compared with adjacent off-crop habitats. Surveys were undertaken within crops and in adjacent off-crop areas using broadly the same methodology in flowering soybean, drybean, maize, citrus, coffee, rice, and cotton and in sugarcane immediately after harvest. The bee species present were assessed twice per day at three times during crop flowering (post-harvest for sugar-cane). Pan traps were used to collect species present within the crop and off-crop twice per day. Drybeans, citrus, and coffee flowers displayed a consistent medium to high abundance of honey bees based on effort-adjusted transect and spot counts. In contrast, fields with flowering soybeans and cotton showed in-crop lower abundance and rice, corn, and harvested sugar cane showed consistently low numbers or no honey bees. In almost all cases honey bees were the most prevalent and abundant flower visitors within the studied crops. Where non-Apis bees were observed they often belong to the Meliponini (primarily Trigona) or the genera Bombus or Xylocopa. The off-crop assessments of species presence using pan traps showed a far wider diversity of species with greater proportional representation of solitary bee species. Overall, whilst honey bees accounted for the majority of observed bees visiting flowers in the agricultural fields, the off-crop habitat contained a greater abundance and diversity of non-Apis bee populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]