Quantifying exposure of bumblebee (Bombus spp.) queens to pesticide residues when hibernating in agricultural soils

Imidacloprid reduces the mating success of males in bumblebees

Bumblebees play a vital role in both natural and agricultural environments, but there has been a noticeable decline in their populations. Pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, are widely regarded as a substantial contributing factor to the decline in bumblebee populations, as evidenced by the detrimental impacts documented across many stages of their life cycle. Mating is vital for the population maintenance of bumblebees. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of research conducted on the effects of pesticides on the mating process. In this study, we individually examined the impact of imidacloprid on the mating behavior of bumblebee males and queens. A competitive mating experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect on the competitive prowess of male individuals and the mate selection behavior of female individuals. The study revealed that the mating rate of bumblebees exposed to a concentration of 10 ppb of imidacloprid was 3 %. This finding demonstrated a statistically significant impact when compared to the control group, which exhibited a mating rate of 58 % in the normal mating experiment. Furthermore, in the competitive mating experiment, we found that the competitive mating success rate of treated males (1 %) was significantly lower than that of untreated males (35 %). Hence, it provides evidence that neonicotinoid imidacloprid negatively affects bumblebee mating success and cautions us to protect bumblebees from pesticide exposure to prevent a severe impact on their populations.

High pesticide exposure and risk to bees in pollinator plantings adjacent to conventionally managed blueberry fields

Wildflower plantings adjacent to agricultural fields provide diverse floral resources and nesting sites for wild bees. However, their proximity to pest control activities in the crop may result in pesticide exposure if pesticides drift into pollinator plantings. To quantify pesticide residues in pollinator plantings, we sampled flowers and soil from pollinator plantings and compared them to samples from unenhanced field margins and crop row middles. At conventionally managed farms, flowers from pollinator plantings had similar exposure profiles to those from unenhanced field margins or crop row middles, with multiple pesticides and high and similar risk quotient (RQ) values (with pollinator planting RQ: 3.9; without pollinator planting RQ: 4.0). Whereas samples from unsprayed sites had significantly lower risk (RQ: 0.005). Soil samples had overall low risk to bees. Additionally, we placed bumble bee colonies (Bombus impatiens) in field margins of crop fields with and without pollinator plantings and measured residues in bee-collected pollen. Pesticide exposure was similar in pollen from sites with or without pollinator plantings, and risk was generally high (with pollinator planting RQ: 0.5; without pollinator planting RQ: 1.1) and not significant between the two field types. Risk was lower at sites where there was no pesticide activity (RQ: 0.3), but again there was no significant difference between management types. The insecticide phosmet, which is used on blueberry farms for control of Drosophila suzukii, accounted for the majority of elevated risk. Additionally, analysis of pollen collected by bumble bees found no significant difference in floral species richness between sites with or without pollinator plantings. Our results suggest that pollinator plantings do not reduce pesticide risk and do not increase pollen diversity collected by B. impatiens, further highlighting the need to reduce exposure through enhanced IPM adoption, drift mitigation, and removal of attractive flowering weeds prior to insecticide applications.

Unveiling the submerged secrets: bumblebee queens' resilience to flooding

In a previous study, an experimental oversight led to the accumulation of water filling a container housing diapausing bumblebee queens. Surprisingly, after draining the water, queens were found to be alive. This observation raises a compelling question: can bumblebee queens endure periods of inundation while overwintering underground? To address this question, we conducted an experiment using 143 common eastern bumblebee (Bombus impatiens) queens placed in soil-filled tubes and subjected to artificially induced diapause in a refrigerated unit for 7 days. Tap water was then added to the tubes and queens (n = 21 per treatment) were either maintained underwater using a plunger-like apparatus or left to float naturally on the water's surface for varying durations (8 h, 24 h or 7 days) while remaining in overwintering conditions. Seventeen queens served as controls. After the submersion period, queens were removed from water, transferred to new tubes with soil and kept in cold storage for eight weeks. Overall, queen survival remained consistently high (89.5 ± 6.4%) across all treatments and did not differ among submersion regimes and durations. These results demonstrate the remarkable ability of diapausing B. impatiens queens to withstand submersion under water for up to one week, indicating their adaptations to survive periods of flooding in the wild.

Pesticide use negatively affects bumble bees across European landscapes

Sustainable agriculture requires balancing crop yields with the effects of pesticides on non-target organisms, such as bees and other crop pollinators. Field studies demonstrated that agricultural use of neonicotinoid insecticides can negatively affect wild bee species1,2, leading to restrictions on these compounds3. However, besides neonicotinoids, field-based evidence of the effects of landscape pesticide exposure on wild bees is lacking. Bees encounter many pesticides in agricultural landscapes4-9 and the effects of this landscape exposure on colony growth and development of any bee species remains unknown. Here we show that the many pesticides found in bumble bee-collected pollen are associated with reduced colony performance during crop bloom, especially in simplified landscapes with intensive agricultural practices. Our results from 316 Bombus terrestris colonies at 106 agricultural sites across eight European countries confirm that the regulatory system fails to sufficiently prevent pesticide-related impacts on non-target organisms, even for a eusocial pollinator species in which colony size may buffer against such impacts10,11. These findings support the need for postapproval monitoring of both pesticide exposure and effects to confirm that the regulatory process is sufficiently protective in limiting the collateral environmental damage of agricultural pesticide use.

Exposure to a fungicide for a field-realistic duration does not alter bumble bee fecal microbiota structure

Social bees are frequently exposed to pesticides when foraging on nectar and pollen. Recent research has shown that pesticide exposure not only impacts social bee host health but can also alter the community structure of social bee gut microbiotas. However, most research on pesticide-bee gut microbiota interactions has been conducted in honey bees; bumble bees, native North American pollinators, have received less attention and, due to differences in their ecology, may be exposed to certain pesticides for shorter durations than honey bees. Here, we examine how exposure to the fungicide chlorothalonil for a short, field-realistic duration alters bumble bee fecal microbiotas (used as a proxy for gut microbiotas) and host performance. We expose small groups of Bombus impatiens workers (microcolonies) to field-realistic chlorothalonil concentrations for 5 days, track changes in fecal microbiotas during the exposure period and a recovery period, and compare microcolony offspring production between treatments at the end of the experiment. We also assess the use of fecal microbiotas as a gut microbiota proxy by comparing community structures of fecal and gut microbiotas. We find that chlorothalonil exposure for a short duration does not alter bumble bee fecal microbiota structure or affect microcolony production at any concentration but that fecal and gut microbiotas differ significantly in community structure. Our results show that, at least when exposure durations are brief and unaccompanied by other stressors, bumble bee microbiotas are resilient to fungicide exposure. Additionally, our work highlights the importance of sampling gut microbiotas directly, when possible.IMPORTANCEWith global pesticide use expected to increase in the coming decades, studies on how pesticides affect the health and performance of animals, including and perhaps especially pollinators, will be crucial to minimize negative environmental impacts of pesticides in agriculture. Here, we find no effect of exposure to chlorothalonil for a short, field-realistic period on bumble bee fecal microbiota community structure or microcolony production regardless of pesticide concentration. Our results can help inform pesticide use practices to minimize negative environmental impacts on the health and fitness of bumble bees, which are key native, commercial pollinators in North America. We also find that concurrently sampled bumble bee fecal and gut microbiotas contain similar microbes but differ from one another in community structure and consequently suggest that using fecal microbiotas as a proxy for gut microbiotas be done cautiously; this result contributes to our understanding of proxy use in gut microbiota research.

Pesticide Exposure and Effects on Non-Apis Bees

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

Risk assessment requires several bee species to address species-specific sensitivity to insecticides at field-realistic concentrations

In the European registration process, pesticides are currently mainly tested on the honey bee. Since sensitivity data for other bee species are lacking for the majority of xenobiotics, it is unclear if and to which extent this model species can adequately serve as surrogate for all wild bees. Here, we investigated the effects of field-realistic contact exposure to a pyrethroid insecticide, containing lambda-cyhalothrin, on seven bee species (Andrena vaga, Bombus terrestris, Colletes cunicularius, Osmia bicornis, Osmia cornuta, Megachile rotundata, Apis mellifera) with different life history characteristics in a series of laboratory trials over two years. Our results on sensitivity showed significant species-specific responses to the pesticide at a field-realistic application rate (i.e., 7.5 g a.s./ha). Species did not group into distinct classes of high and low mortality. Bumble bee and mason bee survival was the least affected by the insecticide, and M. rotundata survival was the most affected with all individuals dead 48 h after application. Apis mellifera showed medium mortality compared to the other bee species. Most sublethal effects, i.e. behavioral abnormalities, were observed within the first hours after application. In some of the solitary species, for example O. bicornis and A. vaga, a higher percentage of individuals performed some abnormal behavior for longer until the end of the observation period. While individual bee weight explained some of the observed mortality patterns, differences are likely linked to additional ecological, phylogenetic or toxicogenomic parameters as well. Our results support the idea that honey bee data can be substitute for some bee species' sensitivity and may justify the usage of safety factors. To adequately cover more sensitive species, a larger set of bee species should be considered for risk assessment.

Honey bees and bumble bees may be exposed to pesticides differently when foraging on agricultural areas

In an agricultural environment, where crops are treated with pesticides, bees are likely to be exposed to a range of chemical compounds in a variety of ways. The extent to which different bee species are affected by these chemicals, largely depends on the concentrations and type of exposure. We quantified the presence of selected pesticide compounds in the pollen of two different entomophilous crops; oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and broad bean (Vicia faba). Sampling was performed in 12 sites in Ireland and our results were compared with the pollen loads of honey bees and bumble bees actively foraging on those crops in those same sites. Detections were compound specific, and the timing of pesticide application in relation to sampling likely influenced the final residue contamination levels. Most detections originated from compounds that were not recently applied on the fields, and samples from B. napus fields were more contaminated compared to those from V. faba fields. Crop pollen was contaminated only with fungicides, honey bee pollen loads contained mainly fungicides, while more insecticides were detected in bumble bee pollen loads. The highest number of compounds and most detections were observed in bumble bee pollen loads, where notably, all five neonicotinoids assessed (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam) were detected despite the no recent application of these compounds on the fields where samples were collected. The concentrations of neonicotinoid insecticides were positively correlated with the number of wild plant species present in the bumble bee-collected pollen samples, but this relationship could not be verified for honey bees. The compounds azoxystrobin, boscalid and thiamethoxam formed the most common pesticide combination in pollen. Our results raise concerns about potential long-term bee exposure to multiple residues and question whether honey bees are suitable surrogates for pesticide risk assessments for all bee species.

First field-based estimates of bumblebee diapause survival rates showcase high survivorship in the wild

Abstract

Bumblebee (Bombus spp.) queens overwintered in artificial settings tend to have low survival rates, raising concerns that diapause may be a particularly sensitive life cycle stage for this ecologically and economically valuable group of pollinators. However, it remains unclear whether lab-based estimates of diapause survival are comparable to survival rates of natural populations. In this study, we monitored the survival of Bombus impatiens queens overwintering in the field in Ipswich, MA, and conducted a meta-analysis of studies that estimate queen diapause survival in the lab to compare our field-based estimates of survival to those of lab-based studies. We found that queen B. impatiens had relatively high rates of overwintering survival after about six months (> 60%), especially when compared to estimates of six-month survival from lab studies (< 10%). We also observed a trend that broadly corroborates many lab studies of bumblebees, in that overwinter survival of queens was related to colony origin. In addition to providing the first estimate of diapause survival for bumblebee queens in nature, our study emphasizes the need to verify patterns observed in the lab to field-based studies.

Implications for insect conservation

Although protecting target species during sensitive life cycle stages is a fundamental goal of conservation ecology, it is first necessary to identify at what stages of the life cycle populations are most vulnerable. Our results suggest that, at least in some study systems, diapause survival of queen bumblebees in the field may be higher than suggested by lab studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10841-023-00478-8.

Fungicide Exposure in Honey Bee Hives Varies By Time, Worker Role, and Proximity to Orchards in Spring

Fungicides are commonly applied to prevent diseases in eastern North American cherry orchards at the same time that honey bees (Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)) are rented for pollination services. Fungicide exposure in honey bees can cause negative health effects. To measure fungicide exposure, we sampled commercial honey bee colonies during orchard bloom at two commercial tart cherry orchards and one holding yard in northern Michigan over two seasons. Nurse bees, foragers, larvae, pollen, bee bread, and wax were screened for captan, chlorothalonil, and thiophanate-methyl. We also looked at the composition of pollens collected by foragers during spring bloom. We found differences in fungicide residue levels between nurse bees and foragers, with higher captan levels in nurse bees. We also found that residue levels of chlorothalonil in workers were significantly increased during tart cherry bloom, and that nurse bees from hives adjacent to orchards had significantly higher chlorothalonil residues than nurse bees from hives kept in a holding yard. Our results suggest that fungicide exposure of individual honey bees depends greatly on hive location in relation to mass-flowering crops, and worker role (life stage) at the time of collection. In some pollen samples, captan and chlorothalonil were detected at levels known to cause negative health effects for honey bees. This study increases our understanding of exposure risk for bees under current bloom time orchard management in this region. Further research is needed to balance crop disease management requirements with necessary pollination services and long-term pollinator health.

Wild bees are exposed to low levels of pesticides in urban grasslands and community gardens

Globally documented wild bee declines threaten sustainable food production and natural ecosystem functioning. Urban environments are often florally abundant, and consequently can contain high levels of pollinator diversity compared with agricultural environments. This has led to the suggestion that urban environments are an increasingly important habitat for pollinators. However, pesticides, such as commercial bug sprays, have a range of lethal and sub-lethal impacts on bees and are widely available for public use, with past work indicating that managed bees (honeybees and bumblebees) are exposed to a range of pesticides in urban environments. Despite this, we still have a poor understanding of (i) whether wild bees foraging in urban environments are exposed to pesticides and (ii) if exposure differs between genera. Here we assessed pesticide exposure in 8 bee genera foraging across multiple urban landscapes. We detected 13 different pesticides, some at concentrations known to have sub-lethal impacts on pollinators. Both the likelihood of pesticides being detected, and the concentrations observed, were higher for larger bees, likely due to their greater foraging ranges. Our results suggest that restricting agrochemical use in urban environments, where the economic benefits are limited, is a simple way to reduce anthropogenic stress on wild bees.

Identifying wild bee visitors of major crops in North America with notes on potential threats from agricultural practices

Considering the critical importance of insect pollination to food security and documented declines in wild bee populations, it is imperative to develop effective conservation and management strategies that promote the health of wild bee communities associated with agroecosystems. Identifying wild bee visitors of crops, including crop-flower visitors and species that nest within cropping areas, may prove critical to this endeavor as optimal conservation strategies may differ among bee species and/or guilds, regions, and cropping systems. Although lists of bee species that are associated with North American crops are scattered throughout the literature, there is a need for a comprehensive compilation of those species by crop, region, and nesting guild. Here, we searched the literature to compile a list of wild bee species associated with 33 major crops in North America and assessed the overlap in bee species communities among crops and regions. Of the 739 crop-associated bee species retrieved, 405 species (54.8%) were ground nesters, and 438 species (59.3%) were identified as crop-flower visitors of at least one crop. Because of their nesting and foraging behavior, we argue that these species are more likely to be exposed to agricultural pesticide residues than bee species that do not nest in the ground or feed directly on crop flowers. We further compiled lists of wild bees that have been found to be associated with all of the four most surveyed perennial fruit crops (apple, blueberry, cranberry, strawberry) and all of the three most surveyed cucurbit crops (cucumber, Cucurbita, watermelon) in eastern North America. These lists of bee species can be used to focus attention on species needing better protection strategies within agroecosystems, especially for these two important North American crop groups and can also inform the development of multi-species pesticide risk assessment schemes.