Search

During all their life stages, bees are exposed to residual concentrations of pesticides, such as insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, stored in beehive matrices. Fungicides are authorized for use during crop blooms because of their low acute toxicity to honey bees. Thus, a bee that might have been previously exposed to pesticides through contaminated food may be subjected to fungicide spraying when it initiates its first flight outside the hive. In this study, we assessed the effects of acute exposure to the fungicide in bees with different toxicological statuses. Three days after emergence, bees were subjected to chronic exposure to the insecticide imidacloprid and the herbicide glyphosate, either individually or in a binary mixture, at environmental concentrations of 0.01 and 0.1 μg/L in food (0.0083 and 0.083 μg/kg) for 30 days. Seven days after the beginning of chronic exposure to the pesticides (10 days after emergence), the bees were subjected to spraying with the fungicide difenoconazole at the registered field dosage. The results showed a delayed significant decrease in survival when honey bees were treated with the fungicide. Fungicide toxicity increased when honey bees were chronically exposed to glyphosate at the lowest concentration, decreased when they were exposed to imidacloprid, and did not significantly change when they were exposed to the binary mixture regardless of the concentration. Bees exposed to all of these pesticide combinations showed physiological disruptions, revealed by the modulation of several life history traits related mainly to metabolism, even when no effect of the other pesticides on fungicide toxicity was observed. These results show that the toxicity of active substances may be misestimated in the pesticide registration procedure, especially for fungicides., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Multiple pesticides originating from plant protection treatments and the treatment of pests infecting honey bees are frequently detected in beehive matrices. Therefore, winter honey bees, which have a long life span, could be exposed to these pesticides for longer periods than summer honey bees. In this study, winter honey bees were exposed through food to the insecticide imidacloprid, the fungicide difenoconazole and the herbicide glyphosate, alone or in binary and ternary mixtures, at environmental concentrations (0 (controls), 0.1, 1 and 10 μg/L) for 20 days. The survival of the honey bees was significantly reduced after exposure to these 3 pesticides individually and in combination. Overall, the combinations had a higher impact than the pesticides alone with a maximum mortality of 52.9% after 20 days of exposure to the insecticide-fungicide binary mixture at 1 μg/L. The analyses of the surviving bees showed that these different pesticide combinations had a systemic global impact on the physiological state of the honey bees, as revealed by the modulation of head, midgut and abdomen glutathione-S-transferase, head acetylcholinesterase, abdomen glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and midgut alkaline phosphatase, which are involved in the detoxification of xenobiotics, the nervous system, defenses against oxidative stress, metabolism and immunity, respectively. These results demonstrate the importance of studying the effects of chemical cocktails based on low realistic exposure levels and developing long-term tests to reveal possible lethal and adverse sublethal interactions in honey bees and other insect pollinators., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Concern about the reproductive toxicity of plant protection products in honey bee reproducers is increasing. Because the reproductive capacity of honey bees is not currently considered during the risk assessment procedure performed during plant protection product registration, it is important to provide methods to assess such potential impairments. To achieve this aim, we used 2 different approaches that involved semifield and laboratory conditions to study the impact of fipronil on drone fertility. For each approach, the drones were reared for 20 d, from emergence to sexual maturity, and exposed to fipronil via a contaminated sugar solution. In both groups, the effects of fipronil were determined by studying life traits and fertility indicators. The results showed that the survival and maturity rates of the drones were better under laboratory conditions than under semifield conditions. Moreover, the drones reared under laboratory conditions produced more seminal fluid. Although these differences could be explained by environmental factors that may vary under semifield conditions, it was found that regardless of the approach used, fipronil did not affect survival rates, maturity rates, or semen volumes, whereas it did affect fertility by inducing a decrease in spermatozoa quantity that was associated with an increase in spermatozoa mortality. These results confirm that fipronil affects drone fertility and support the relevance of each approach for assessing the potential reproductive toxicity of plant protection products in honey bees. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:2345-2351. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC., (© 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.)

Honeybee colony survival strongly relies on the queen to overcome worker losses exposed to combined stressors like pesticides and parasites. Queen's capacity to withstand these stressors is however very little known. The effects of the common neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid in a chronic and sublethal exposure together with the wide distributed parasite Nosema ceranae have therefore been investigated on queen's physiology and survivorship in laboratory and field conditions. Early physiological changes were observed on queens, particularly the increase of enzyme activities (catalase [CAT] and glutathione-S-transferase [GST] in the heads) related to protective responses to xenobiotics and oxidative stress against pesticide and parasite alone or combined. Stressors also alter the activity of two other enzymes (carboxylesterase alpha [CaE α] and carboxylesterase para [CaE p] in the midguts) involved in metabolic and detoxification functions. Furthermore, single and combined effects of pesticide and parasite decrease survivorship of queens introduced into mating hives for three months. Because colony demographic regulation relies on queen's fertility, the compromise of its physiology and life can seriously menace colony survival under pressure of combined stressors.

In pesticide risk assessment, estimating the routes and levels of exposure is critical. For honey bees subjected to pesticide spray, toxicity is assessed by thorax contact to account for all possible contact exposures. In the present study, the authors tested 6 active substances with different hydrophobicity. For the first time, the authors demonstrated that it is possible to induce mortality by pesticide contact with only the wings of the honey bee. The toxicities induced by contact with the wings and thorax were similar, with the wing median lethal dose (LD50) being 0.99 to 2.23 times higher than that of the thorax. This finding demonstrates that the wings represent a relevant route of exposure in the honey bee. In a second approach, the authors estimated the air volume displaced by the wings during 1 beating cycle to be 0.51 ± 0.03 cm(3), which corresponds to a volume of 116.8 ± 5.8 cm(3)  s(-1) at a wing beat frequency of 230 Hz. The authors then tested realistic scenarios of exposure for bees flying through a pesticide cloud at different concentrations. In the worst-case scenario, the dose accumulated during the flight reached 525 ng bee(-1)  s(-1). These results show that the procedure used to assess the risk posed by contact with pesticides could be improved by accounting for wing exposure., (© 2015 SETAC.)

Plant protection spray treatments may expose non-target organisms to pesticides. In the pesticide registration procedure, the honey bee represents one of the non-target model species for which the risk posed by pesticides must be assessed on the basis of the hazard quotient (HQ). The HQ is defined as the ratio between environmental exposure and toxicity. For the honey bee, the HQ calculation is not consistent because it corresponds to the ratio between the pesticide field rate (in mass of pesticide/ha) and LD50 (in mass of pesticide/bee). Thus, in contrast to all other species, the HQ can only be interpreted empirically because it corresponds to a number of bees/ha. This type of HQ calculation is due to the difficulty in transforming pesticide field rates into doses to which bees are exposed. In this study, we used a pragmatic approach to determine the apparent exposure surface area of honey bees submitted to pesticide treatments by spraying with a Potter-type tower. The doses received by the bees were quantified by very efficient chemical analyses, which enabled us to determine an apparent surface area of 1.05 cm(2)/bee. The apparent surface area was used to calculate the exposure levels of bees submitted to pesticide sprays and then to revisit the HQ ratios with a calculation mode similar to that used for all other living species. X-tomography was used to assess the physical surface area of a bee, which was 3.27 cm(2)/bee, and showed that the apparent exposure surface was not overestimated. The control experiments showed that the toxicity induced by doses calculated with the exposure surface area was similar to that induced by treatments according to the European testing procedure. This new approach to measure risk is more accurate and could become a tool to aid the decision-making process in the risk assessment of pesticides.