Search

Mounting evidence supporting the negative impacts of exposure to neonicotinoids on bees has prompted the registration of novel 'bee-friendly' insecticides for agricultural use. Flupyradifurone (FPF) is a butenolide insecticide that shares the same mode of action as neonicotinoids and has been assessed to be 'practically non-toxic to adult honeybees' using current risk assessment procedures. However, these assessments overlook some routes of exposure specific to wild bees, such as contact with residues in soil for ground-nesters. Co-exposure with other pesticides may also lead to detrimental synergistic effects. In a fully crossed experiment, we assessed the possible lethal and sublethal effects of chronic exposure to two pesticides used on Cucurbita crops, the insecticide Sivanto Prime (FPF) and the fungicide Quadris Top (azoxystrobin and difenoconazole), alone or combined, on solitary ground-nesting squash bees ( Xenoglossa pruinosa ). Squash bees exposed to Quadris Top collected less pollen per flower visit, while Sivanto-exposed bees produced larger offspring. Pesticide co-exposure induced hyperactivity in female squash bees relative to both the control and single pesticide exposure, and reduced the number of emerging offspring per nest compared to individual pesticide treatments. This study demonstrates that 'low-toxicity' pesticides can adversely affect squash bees under field-realistic exposure, alone or in combination.

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.

Exposure to pesticides is a major threat to bumblebee (Bombus spp.) health. In temperate regions, queens of many bumblebee species hibernate underground for several months, putting them at potentially high risk of exposure to soil contaminants. The extent to which bumblebees are exposed to residues in agricultural soils during hibernation is currently unknown, which limits our understanding of the full pesticide exposome for bumblebees throughout their lifecycle. To generate field exposure estimates for overwintering bumblebee queens to pesticide residues, we sampled soils from areas corresponding to suitable likely hibernation sites at six apple orchards and 13 diversified farms throughout Southern Ontario (Canada) in fall 2019-2020. Detectable levels of pesticides were found in 65 of 66 soil samples analysed for multi-pesticide residues (UPLC-MS/MS). A total of 53 active ingredients (AIs) were detected in soils, including 27 fungicides, 13 insecticides, and 13 herbicides. Overall, the frequency of detection, residue levels (median = 37.82 vs. 2.20 ng/g), and number of pesticides per sample (mean = 12 vs. 4 AIs) were highest for orchard soils compared to soils from diversified farms. Ninety-one percent of samples contained multiple residues (up to 29 different AIs per sample), including mixtures of insecticides and fungicides that might lead to synergistic effects. Our results suggest that when hibernating in agricultural areas, bumblebee queens are very likely to be exposed to a wide range of pesticide residues in soil, including potentially harmful levels of insecticides (e.g., cyantraniliprole up to 148.82 ng/g). Our study indicates the importance of empirically testing the potential effects of pesticide residues in soils for hibernating bumblebee queens, using field exposure data such as those generated here. The differences in potential exposure that we detected between cropping systems can also be used to better inform regulations that govern the use of agricultural pesticides, notably in apple orchards., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Fungicides account for more than 35% of the global pesticide market and their use is predicted to increase in the future. While fungicides are commonly applied during bloom when bees are likely foraging on crops, whether real-world exposure to these chemicals - alone or in combination with other stressors - constitutes a threat to the health of bees is still the subject of great uncertainty. The first step in estimating the risks of exposure to fungicides for bees is to understand how and to what extent bees are exposed to these active ingredients. Here we review the current knowledge that exists about exposure to fungicides that bees experience in the field, and link quantitative data on exposure to acute and chronic risk of lethal endpoints for honey bees (Apis mellifera). From the 702 publications we screened, 76 studies contained quantitative data on residue detections in honey bee matrices, and a further 47 provided qualitative information about exposure for a range of bee taxa through various routes. We compiled data for 90 fungicides and metabolites that have been detected in honey, beebread, pollen, beeswax, and the bodies of honey bees. The risks posed to honey bees by fungicide residues was estimated through the EPA Risk Quotient (RQ) approach. Based on residue concentrations detected in honey and pollen/beebread, none of the reported fungicides exceeded the levels of concern (LOC) set by regulatory agencies for acute risk, while 3 and 12 fungicides exceeded the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) chronic LOC for honey bees and wild bees, respectively. When considering exposure to all bees, fungicides of most concern include many broad-spectrum systemic fungicides, as well as the widely used broad-spectrum contact fungicide chlorothalonil. In addition to providing a detailed overview of the frequency and extent of fungicide residue detections in the bee environment, we identified important research gaps and suggest future directions to move towards a more comprehensive understanding and mitigation of the risks of exposure to fungicides for bees, including synergistic risks of co-exposure to fungicides and other pesticides or pathogens., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Current pesticide risk assessment practices use the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., as a surrogate to characterize the likelihood of chemical exposure of a candidate pesticide for all bee species. Bees make up a diverse insect group that provides critical pollination services to both managed and wild ecosystems. Accordingly, they display a diversity of behaviors and vary greatly in their lifestyles and phenologies, such as their timing of emergence, degree of sociality, and foraging and nesting behaviors. Some of these factors may lead to disparate or variable routes of exposure when compared to honey bees. For those that possess life histories that are distinct from A. mellifera, further risk assessments may be warranted. In January 2017, 40 bee researchers, representative of regulatory agencies, academia, and agrochemical industries, gathered to discuss the current state of science on pesticide exposure to non-Apis bees and to determine how well honey bee exposure estimates, implemented by different regulatory agencies, may be protective for non-Apis bees. Workshop participants determined that although current risk assessment procedures for honey bees are largely conservative, several routes of exposure are unique to non-Apis bees and warranted further investigation. In this forum article, we discuss these key routes of exposure relevant to non-Apis bees and identify important research gaps that can help inform future bee risk assessment decisions.

Current pesticide risk assessment for bees relies on a single (social) species, the western honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). However, most of the >20,000 bee species worldwide are solitary. Differences in life history traits between solitary bees (SB) and honey bees (HB) are likely to determine differences in routes and levels of pesticide exposure. The objectives of this review are to: 1) compare SB and HB life history traits relevant for risk assessment; 2) summarize current knowledge about levels of pesticide exposure for SB and HB; 3) identify knowledge gaps and research needs; 4) evaluate whether current HB risk assessment schemes cover routes and levels of exposure of SB; and 5) identify potential SB model species for risk assessment. Most SB exposure routes seem well covered by current HB risk assessment schemes. Exceptions to this are exposure routes related to nesting substrates and nesting materials used by SB. Exposure via soil is of particular concern because most SB species nest underground. Six SB species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae - Osmia bicornis L., O. cornifrons Radoszkowski, O. cornuta Latreille, O. lignaria Say, Megachile rotundata F., and Halictidae - Nomia melanderi Cockerell) are commercially available and could be used in risk assessment. Of these, only N. melanderi nests underground, and the rest are cavity-nesters. However, the three Osmia species collect soil to build their nests. Life history traits of cavity-nesting species make them particularly suitable for semifield and, to a lesser extent, field tests. Future studies should address basic biology, rearing methods and levels of exposure of ground-nesting SB species.

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.