Tracking Pesticide Residues to a Plant Genus Using Palynology in Pollen Trapped from Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) at Ornamental Plant Nurseries

A risk based pollination network for non-Apis bees demonstrates the importance of understory plant contamination

Understanding the distribution of pesticides in the floral landscape is critical for land managers and regulators, particularly since identifying where exposure occurs is critical to pesticide mitigation. In this study, we developed a bee-plant network for a commercial sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) system and the surrounding unmanaged floral habitat. We estimated the pesticide contamination of flowering plants in this network by trapping pollen from honey bee colonies, identifying the plant species of origin of the pollen, and relating this to the non-Apis bee visitation and toxicity of pesticide detections. Over 90 plant-bee interactions from non-Apis species were matched with honey bee collected pollen. By combining bee visitation and pollen data, we attributed the pesticide hazard to 33 plant genera. Unlike previous studies, we observed the greatest hazard to non-Apis bees did not come from visits to the crop or from pesticide drift off the orchard, but from contamination of an orchard understory plant (genus Taraxacum). The importance of this plant in pesticide exposure was related to both the hazard of the pollen and the frequency of visitation by non-Apis bees. Our findings caution against generalizing how non-Apis bee species become exposed to pesticides.

Biodiversity of Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) in Connecticut (USA)

In response to calls for national and regional updated inventories of bee species, we present a county-level checklist for 385 confirmed bee (Apoidea: Anthophila) species for Connecticut, USA, highlighting rare and regionally declining species, species that have specific habitat and/or host requirements, and species whose taxonomy and distribution we wish to clarify. We have compiled a comprehensive, digitized database of historic and current bee records from Connecticut to inform this checklist, which includes specimen records from museums, recent collections, and community science observations from iNaturalist.com. All images of bees from Connecticut on iNaturalist (18,471 observations) have been fully vetted by one or more of the authors, which is unprecedented for a state project. We summarize historical bee research in Connecticut and provide current information regarding the distribution of bee species, changes in status, phenology, habitat usage, and floral associations within the state. At least 43 of 385 species represented in collections or literature have not been detected in Connecticut since the year 2000. These and other species of conservation concern are discussed with reference to a quantitative assessment of changes in range within the state. In addition, we have calculated and report state-level ranks for 124 bee species in Connecticut. We corroborate regional loss of species including Coelioxys funerarius Smith and Holcopasites illinoiensis (Robertson) and clarify and extend the distribution of numerous bee species in the Northeastern United States. Furthermore, we discuss morphospecies, excluded species, and species expected for Connecticut. We also validate synonymies reported previously online based on an unpublished manuscript by Roy Snelling for the following species: Nomada depressa Cresson (= N. hoodiana Cockerell; = N. carinicauda Cockerell; = N. media Mitchell); Nomada obliterata Cresson (= N. decepta Mitchell); Nomada vicina Cresson (= N. beulahensis Cockerell; = N. vicina stevensi Swenk). In addition, we recognize three new synonyms of Nomada xanthura Cockerell (= N. ochlerata Mitchell; = N. detrita Mitchell; = N. mendica Mitchell) and report the first Nomada townesi Mitchell from outside of Maryland. In addition to N. townesi, the following eleven native species are newly reported or recently confirmed for Connecticut: Andrena (Cnemidandrena) parnassi----ae Cockerell; Andrena (Melandrena) sayi Robertson; Andrena (Trachandrena) rehni Viereck; Anthophora bomboides Kirby; Nomada armatella Cockerell; Nomada electella Cockerell; Nomada placida Cresson; Lasioglossum (Dialictus) cattellae (Ellis); Lasioglossum (Dialictus) ellisiae (Sandhouse); Lasioglossum (Dialictus) fattigi (Mitchell); Lasioglossum (Dialictus) trigeminum Gibbs. The following recent arrivals among non-native species are confirmed: Pseudoanthidium (Pseudoanthidium) nanum (Mocsáry); Coelioxys (Allocoelioxys) coturnix Pérez; Osmia (Osmia) taurus Smith. This work is a stepping stone towards a larger, ongoing effort to clarify bee distribution and status in New England. As such, we also report updates for the bee fauna of the following states: Massachusetts-Melissodes communis communis Cresson; Megachile (Eutricharaea) apicalis Spinola), Maine-Chelostoma philadelphi (Robertson), and New Hampshire-Lasioglossum nelumbonis (Robertson).

The power to (detect) change: Can honey bee collected pollen be used to monitor pesticide residues in the landscape?

Analysis of trapped honey bee pollen for pesticide residues is the most widely used method of monitoring the amount of pesticide entering colonies and its change over time. In this study, we collected and analyzed pollen from 70 sites across four bee-pollinated crops over two years to characterize the variation in pesticide detection across sites, crops and at different periods during bloom. Hazard Quotient, HQ, is the most common way that pesticide residues are aggregated into a single pesticide hazard value in the current literature. Therefore, change in pesticide hazard (HQ) was quantified in composite pollen samples collected from pollen traps and in pollen color subsamples separated into pollen from the target crop being pollinated and pollen from other plant species. We used our estimates of the variation in HQ to calculate the number of sample location sites needed to detect a 5% annual change in HQ across all crops or within specific crops over a 5-year period. The number of sites required to be sampled varied by crop and year and ranged between 139 and 7194 sites, costing an estimated $129,548 and $3.35 million, respectively. The HQ values detectable for this cost would be 575 and 154. We identified additional factors that complicate the interpretation of the results as a way to evaluate changes in pest management practices at a state level. First, in all but one crop (meadowfoam), the pollen collected from outside the crop honey bee colonies were pollinating comprised a major percentage of the total pollen catch. Moreover, we found that when the overall quantity of pollen from different pollen sources was taken into account, differences in HQ among crops widened. We also found that while HQ estimates remain consistent across the bloom period for some crops, such as cherry, we observed large differences in other crops, notably meadowfoam. Overall, our results suggest the current practice of interpreting pesticides levels in pollen may come with limitations for agencies charged with improving pesticide stewardship due to the high variation associated with HQ values over time and across crops. Despite the limitations of HQ for detecting change in pesticide hazard, there remains a potential for HQ to provide feedback to regulators and scientists on field-realistic pesticide hazard within a landscape.

Evaluation of the most popular annual flowers sold in the United States and Europe indicates low visitation rates by pollinators and large variation among cultivars

To better understand how frequently pollinators visit the most popular annuals and the variation among cultivars, we evaluated 3-6 cultivars, each of petunia, impatiens, begonia, geranium, pansy, and New Guinea impatiens. These 6 annuals account for 46.6% of all garden center annual flower sales in the United States. Flower visits by honey bees, bumble bees, syrphids, other Diptera and other Hymenoptera, combined, varied 3 to 10-fold among cultivars within each of the 6 popular annuals. Begonia and impatiens were visited more frequently by pollinators than pansy, petunia, NG impatiens, and geranium. The 4 most visited cultivars, begonia 'Cocktail Brandy', begonia 'Ambassador Rose Blush', impatiens 'Accent Coral', and impatiens 'Super Elfin XP White' attracted as many pollinators as a benchmark annual, marigold 'Alumia Vanilla Cream', considered as moderately attractive to pollinators. Some conclusions from this research may be helpful for homeowners, landscapers, growers, and breeders. First, the most popular annual flowers are not a good choice for the purpose of attracting and supporting pollinators. However, the large variation among cultivars provides an opportunity to select cultivars that are more attractive to pollinators, particularly for begonia and impatiens. If the most pollinator-visited cultivars of begonia and impatiens are labeled and promoted as such, it would be beneficial to pollinators in urban and suburban landscapes in the USA and Europe, where they comprise 10%-20% of all annual flowers purchased from garden centers.

Effects of common co-occurring pesticides (a neonicotinoid and fungicide) on honey bee colony health in a semi-field study

Multiple stressors are linked to declines of insects and important pollinators, such as bees. Recently, interactive effects of multiple agrochemicals on bees have been highlighted, including fungicides, which increase toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides. Here, we use a semi-field study across two seasons in controlled foraging tunnels to test the effects of a field application of a commercial fungicide product with two active ingredients (pyraclostrobin and metconazole) applied at label rates. We also examine its interactive effects with the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin, at a conservative field-realistic dose of 2.23 ppb, on 48 honey bee colonies. We found combined effects of pesticide exposure, including additive 2.93-fold increases in mortality, and an additional effect of increased infestation levels of the ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor. Pesticide treatments also reduced colony activity, reduced colony weight, and increased sugar consumption of whole colonies. These findings indicate that typical sublethal exposure levels to common, co-occurring agrochemicals in the field significantly affect the health of whole honey bee colonies, highlighting an unintended consequence of increasing pesticide applications.

Spatial distribution of two acaricides and five neonicotinoids in beehives and surrounding environments in China

Managed bees commonly suffer from cross-contamination with acaricides and neonicotinoids, posing robust threats to bee population health. However, their residual characteristics and spatial distribution in beehives and surrounding environments are poorly understood. This study detected two common acaricides and five neonicotinoids in 240 beehive samples and 44 surrounding environmental samples collected from 25 Chinese provinces. The results showed that 40.0% of the honey samples contained acaricides and 83.1% contained neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoid concentrations in honey were geographically distinguished by the "Hu Huanyong line", and concentrations of neonicotinoids in honey from eastern areas were 2.65-fold higher than those in honey from western areas. Compared to the approved acaricide amitraz, the banned acaricide coumaphos was detected more frequently in honey and was positively correlated with that quantified in the paired pollen samples. Although coumaphos was identified in only three soil samples, lower coumaphos residues in honey might be associated with persistent pollution in the surrounding environment. Conversely, neonicotinoids were detected at higher levels in honey than in the pollen and soil, demonstrating that the neonicotinoid residues in honey have a cumulative effect. This study contributes to a better understanding of the pesticide contamination scenarios that underlie the exposure risks of bees.

Identity and diversity of pollens collected by two managed bee species while in blueberry fields for pollination

The nutritional needs and foraging behavior of managed bees often lead to pollen collection from flowers other than the focal crop during crop pollination. To understand the pollen needs and preferences of managed bees during blueberry pollination, we identified pollen collected by Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Bombus impatiens Cresson, 1863 (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies across two years. Bumble bees collected a wider diversity of pollens compared to honey bees, whereas honey bees were more focused on abundant resources. Despite blueberries being the most abundant resource in the landscape, it was not the most collected pollen by either bee species in 2018. However, it was the most collected pollen by bumble bees in 2019 and they collected substantially more blueberry pollen than honey bees in both years. In 2018, buckthorn, Rhamnus L. (Rosales: Rhamnaceae) or Frangula Mill. (Rosales: Rhamnaceae), and willow, Salix L. (Malpighiales: Salicaceae), pollens were abundantly collected by both bee species. In 2019, cherry, Prunus L. (Rosales: Rosaceae), and willow (Salix) pollens were collected at high proportions by both species. Brambles, Rubus L. (Rosales: Rosaceae), and white clover, Trifolium repens L. (Fabales: Fabaceae), were also common pollen sources for honey bees, whereas oak, Quercus L. (Fagales: Fagaceae), was collected by bumble bees. Landscape analyses also revealed that certain land cover types were positively correlated with the collection of preferred pollen types. Herbaceous wetlands were associated with collection of buckthorn (Rhamnus/Frangula), willow (Salix), and cherry (Prunus) pollen, which were primary pollen resources for both bee species. There was no correlation between landscape diversity and pollen diversity, suggesting that colonies forage based on nutritional requirements rather than resource availability.

Pesticide residues in honey bee (Apis mellifera) pollen collected in two ornamental plant nurseries in Connecticut: Implications for bee health and risk assessment

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are one of the most important managed pollinators of agricultural crops. While potential effects of agricultural pesticides on honey bee health have been investigated in some settings, risks to honey bees associated with exposures occurring in the plant nursery setting have received little attention. We sought to identify and quantify pesticide levels present in honey bee-collected pollen harvested in two ornamental plant nurseries (i.e., Nursery A and Nursery B) in Connecticut. From June to September 2018, pollen was collected weekly from 8 colonies using bottom-mounted pollen traps. Fifty-five unique pesticides (including related metabolites) were detected: 24 insecticides, 20 fungicides, and 11 herbicides. Some of the pesticide contaminants detected in the pollen had not been applied by the nurseries, indicating that the honey bee colonies did not exclusively forage on pollen at their respective nursery. The average number of pesticides per sample was similar at both nurseries (i.e., 12.9 at Nursery A and 14.2 at Nursery B). To estimate the potential risk posed to honey bees from these samples, we utilized the USEPA's BeeREX tool to calculate risk quotients (RQs) for each pesticide within each sample. The median aggregate RQ for nurse bees was 0.003 at both nurseries, well below the acute risk level of concern (LOC) of ≥0.4. We also calculated RQs for larvae due to their increased sensitivity to certain pesticides. In total, 6 samples had larval RQs above the LOC (0.45-2.51), resulting from the organophosphate insecticide diazinon. Since 2015, the frequency and amount of diazinon detected in pollen increased at one of our study locations, potentially due to pressure to reduce the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Overall, these data highlight the importance of considering all life stages when estimating potential risk to honey bee colonies from pesticide exposure.

The fungicide azoxystrobin causes histopathological and cytotoxic changes in the midgut of the honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Apis mellifera is an important bee pollinating native and crop plants but its recent population decline has been linked to the use of pesticides, including fungicides that have been commonly classified as safe for bees. However, many pesticides, in addition to direct mortality cause sublethal effects, including damage to target selective honey bee organs. The midgut is the organ responsible for the digestion and absorption of nutrients and the detoxification of ingested substances, such as pesticides. This study evaluated the histopathological and cytotoxic changes in the midgut of A. mellifera workers caused by the pesticide azoxystrobin. The limit-test was performed, and a 100 µg a.i./bee dose was administered orally and midgut analyzed with light and transmission electron microscopies after 24 h and 48 h of pesticide exposure. The midgut of the control bees has a single layer of digestive cells, with spherical nuclei, nests of regenerative cells, and the lumen coated with the peritrophic matrix. The bees fed on azoxystrobin showed morphological changes, including intense cytoplasm vacuolization and cell fragments released into the gut lumen. The protein detection test showed greater staining intensity in the nests of regenerative cells after 24 h of exposure to azoxystrobin. The occurrence of damage to the midgut in A. mellifera exposed to azoxystrobin indicates that although this fungicide has been classified as low toxicity for bees, it has sublethal effects in the midgut, and effects in other organs should be investigated.

Does sorting by color using visible and high-energy violet light improve classification of taxa in honey bee pollen pellets?

Premise

Pollen collected by honey bees from different plant species often differs in color, and this has been used as a basis for plant identification. The objective of this study was to develop a new, low-cost protocol to sort pollen pellets by color using high-energy violet light and visible light to determine whether pollen pellet color is associated with variations in plant species identity.

Methods and Results

We identified 35 distinct colors and found that 52% of pollen subsamples (n = 200) were dominated by a single taxon. Among these near-pure pellets, only one color consistently represented a single pollen taxon (Asteraceae: Cichorioideae). Across the spectrum of colors spanning yellows, oranges, and browns, similarly colored pollen pellets contained pollen from multiple plant families ranging from two to 13 families per color.

Conclusions

Sorting pollen pellets illuminated under high-energy violet light lit from four directions within a custom-made light box aided in distinguishing pellet composition, especially in pellets within the same color.

Where Does Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Pollen Come from? A Study of Pollen Collected from Colonies at Ornamental Plant Nurseries

Ornamental nursery plants are both a major agricultural industry in the U.S. and a major feature of the urban and suburban landscape. Interest in their relationship with pollinators is two-fold: the extent to which they provide a nutritional benefit to pollinators, and the extent to which they have the potential to harm pollinators by exposing them to pesticide residues in nectar and pollen. We identified plant genera as sources of trapped pollen collected by honey bee colonies located at commercial ornamental plant nurseries in Connecticut in 2015 and 2018 and quantified the percentage of pollen volume collected from each genus for each weekly sample over two seasons. Plant genera grown at these nurseries, particularly Rosa, Rhus, and Ilex, contributed substantially to pollen volume during weeks 23-27 of the year. Among the genera not grown in nurseries, Toxicodendron was also important during weeks 23 and 24, and Trifolium was important in both frequency and quantity throughout the season. Zea was a major component of pollen volume from weeks 28-36 in both sites, even though cropland was not over 11% of land cover at either site.

Fungicides and bees: a review of exposure and risk

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.

The Value of Hazard Quotients in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Ecotoxicology: A Review

Estimates of pesticide application hazards have grown to be one of the most common methodologies for evaluating the impact of pest management practices on honey bees. Typically, hazards are estimated by calculating a Hazard Quotient (HQ), which is based on acute toxicity data for different pesticides and the quantity of those pesticides applied to a field or detected on bees and matrices associated with their hive (honey, wax, pollen, and/or bee bread). Although use of HQ is widespread, there have been few reviews of this methodology, particularly with focus on how effective this method is at predicting effects of pesticides on hives. We evaluated 36 relevant papers, containing calculations of HQ to estimate hazards to honey bees. We observed that HQ was primarily calculated using two different approaches: (1) from the concentration of pesticides in the food, hive, or tissues of honey bees or (2) using the field application rate of the active ingredient as the estimation of pesticide hazard. Within and between HQ calculation methods, thresholds vary widely with some HQ thresholds set below 1 and others set at 10,000. Based on our review we identify key weakness with current HQ methodology and how studies relate HQ to honey bee health endpoints. First, HQ thresholds from studies of pesticides in hives are not based on the same pesticide consumption models from the EPA, potentially overestimating the risk of impacts to colonies. Conversely, HQ estimates calculated from field application rates are not based on eco-toxicological estimates of field exposure, resulting in an overestimation of pesticide reaching colonies. We suggest it is for these reasons that there is poor correspondence between HQ and field-level honey bee health endpoints. Considering these challenges, HQ calculations should be used cautiously in future studies and more research should be dedicated to field level exposure models.

Pesticide risk to managed bees during blueberry pollination is primarily driven by off-farm exposures

When managed bee colonies are brought to farms for crop pollination, they can be exposed to pesticide residues. Quantifying the risk posed by these exposures can indicate which pesticides are of the greatest concern and helps focus efforts to reduce the most harmful exposures. To estimate the risk from pesticides to bees while they are pollinating blueberry fields, we sampled blueberry flowers, foraging bees, pollen collected by returning honey bee and bumble bee foragers at colonies, and wax from honey bee hives in blooming blueberry farms in southwest Michigan. We screened the samples for 261 active ingredients using a modified QuEChERS method. The most abundant pesticides were those applied by blueberry growers during blueberry bloom (e.g., fenbuconazole and methoxyfenozide). However, we also detected highly toxic pesticides not used in this crop during bloom (or other times of the season) including the insecticides chlorpyrifos, clothianidin, avermectin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid. Using LD50 values for contact and oral exposure to honey bees and bumble bees, we calculated the Risk Quotient (RQ) for each individual pesticide and the average sample RQ for each farm. RQ values were considered in relation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acute contact level of concern (LOC, 0.4), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) acute contact LOC (0.2) and the EFSA chronic oral LOC (0.03). Pollen samples were most likely to exceed LOC values, with the percent of samples above EFSA's chronic oral LOC being 0% for flowers, 3.4% for whole honey bees, 0% for whole bumble bees, 72.4% for honey bee pollen in 2018, 45.4% of honey bee pollen in 2019, 46.7% of bumble bee pollen in 2019, and 3.5% of honey bee wax samples. Average pollen sample RQ values were above the EFSA chronic LOC in 92.9% of farms in 2018 and 42.9% of farms in 2019 for honey bee collected pollen, and 46.7% of farms for bumble bee collected pollen in 2019. Landscape analyses indicated that sample RQ was positively correlated with the abundance of apple and cherry orchards located within the flight range of the bees, though this varied between bee species and landscape scale. There was no correlation with abundance of blueberry production. Our results highlight the need to mitigate pesticide risk to bees across agricultural landscapes, in addition to focusing on the impact of applications on the farms where they are applied.

The use of the Hazard Quotient approach to assess the potential risk to honeybees (Apis mellifera) posed by pesticide residues detected in bee-relevant matrices is not appropriate

BACKGROUND

Pesticide residue data for pollen and nectar are valuable for characterizing realistic exposure of pollinators, e.g. from agricultural crops, flowering margins. Interpretation of residues relies on comparing exposure with toxicity and the Hazard Quotient (HQ) is widely utilized. However, the HQ (threshold of concern 50) was only validated for foliar sprays, based on application rate as a proxy for exposure, not measured residues in bee-relevant matrices.

RESULTS

A review of the literature showed a range of HQ approaches and thresholds of concern used to assess non-foliar applications and residues detected in bee-relevant matrices, mostly pollen. The use of the HQ thresholds to assess risks associated with residue data or non-foliar spray application methods is not validated, does not reflect realistic exposure and the conclusions reached differ substantially from current risk assessment approaches. Re-evaluation of residue data from the first published use of the concentration-based HQ (2013) and a recent paper (2021) reduced the proportion of pesticides where a conclusion of potential risk was reached from 30 to 7% and 28% to 3-6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of the applicability of the selected risk assessment approach to the available residue data is needed to enable robust conclusions to be drawn on the potential risk to bees. Use of the HQ approach to assess the risk posed by application methods other than foliar sprays or residues in nectar and pollen is likely to result in unreliable conclusions. An alternative approach should be used to assess the significance of measured residues.

Pollinators and plant nurseries: how irrigation and pesticide treatment of native ornamental plants impact solitary bees

A key conservation goal in agroecosystems is to understand how management practices may affect beneficial species, such as pollinators. Currently, broad gaps exist in our knowledge as to how horticultural management practices, such as irrigation level, might influence bee reproduction, particularly for solitary bees. Despite the extensive use of ornamental plants by bees, especially little is known about how irrigation level may interact with insecticides, like water-soluble neonicotinoids, to influence floral rewards and bee reproduction. We designed a two-factor field cage experiment in which we reared Megachile rotundata (Fabricius) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) on containerized ornamental plants grown under two different irrigation levels and imidacloprid treatments (30% label rate dosage of a nursery formulation or an untreated control). Lower irrigation was associated with modest decreases in nectar volume and floral abundance in untreated plants, whereas irrigation did not affect plants treated with imidacloprid. Furthermore, higher irrigation decreased the amount of imidacloprid entering nectar. Imidacloprid application strongly reduced bee foraging activity and reproduction, and higher irrigation did not offset any negative effects on bees. Our study emphasizes the impact of a nursery neonicotinoid formulation on solitary bee foraging and reproduction, while highlighting interactions between irrigation level and neonicotinoid application in containerized plants themselves.

Plant protection product residues in plant pollen and nectar: A review of current knowledge

Exposure to Plant Protection Products, PPPs, (fungicides, herbicides and insecticides) is a significant stressor for bees and other pollinators, and has recently been the focus of intensive debate and research. Specifically, exposure through contaminated pollen and nectar is considered pivotal, as it presents the highest risk of PPP exposure across all bee species. However, the actual risk that multiple PPP residues might pose to non-target species is difficult to assess due to the lack of clear evidence of their actual concentrations. To consolidate the existing knowledge of field-realistic residues detected in pollen and nectar directly collected from plants, we performed a systematic literature review of studies over the past 50 years (1968-2018). We found that pollen was the matrix most frequently evaluated and, of the compounds investigated, the majority were detected in pollen samples. Although the overall most studied category of PPPs were the neonicotinoid insecticides, the compounds with the highest median concentrations of residues in pollen were: the broad spectrum carbamate carbofuran (1400 ng/g), the fungicide and nematicide iprodione (524 ng/g), and the organophosphate insecticide dimethoate (500 ng/g). In nectar, the highest median concentration of PPP residues detected were dimethoate (1595 ng/g), chlorothalonil (76 ng/g), and the insecticide phorate (53.5 ng/g). Strong positive correlation was observed between neonicotinoid residues in pollen and nectar of cultivated plant species. The maximum concentrations of several compounds detected in nectar and pollen were estimated to exceed the LD_50s for honey bees, bumble bees and four solitary bee species, by several orders of magnitude. However, there is a paucity of information for the biggest part of the world and there is an urgent need to expand the range of compounds evaluated in PPP studies.

A screening-level assessment of the pollinator-attractiveness of ornamental nursery stock using a honey bee foraging assay

In urban and suburban landscapes characterized by extensive designed greenspaces, the support of pollinator communities hinges significantly on floral resources provided by ornamental plants. The attractiveness of ornamental plants to pollinators, however, cannot be presumed, and some studies suggest that a majority of ornamental plant varieties receive little or no pollinator visitation. Here, we harness the sampling power of the western honey bee, a generalist pollinator whose diet breadth overlaps substantially with that of other pollinators, to survey the utilization of ornamental plants grown at three commercial nurseries in Connecticut, USA. Using a combination of DNA metabarcoding and microscopy, we identify, to genus-level, pollen samples from honey bee colonies placed within each nursery, and we compare our results with nursery plant inventories to identify the subset of cultivated genera that were visited during pollen foraging. Samples were collected weekly from May to September, encompassing the majority of the growing season. Our findings show that some plant genera known to be cultivated as ornamentals in our system, particularly ornamental trees and shrubs (e.g. Hydrangea, Rosa, Spiraea, Syringa, Viburnum), functioned as major pollen sources, but the majority of plants inventoried at our nurseries provided little or no pollen to honey bees. These results are in agreement with a growing body of literature highlighting the special importance of woody plants as resources for flower-visiting insects. We encourage further exploration of the genera highlighted in our data as potential components of pollinator-friendly ornamental greenspace.

Wild Bee Conservation within Urban Gardens and Nurseries: Effects of Local and Landscape Management

Across urban environments, vegetated habitats provide refuge for biodiversity. Gardens (designed for food crop production) and nurseries (designed for ornamental plant production) are both urban agricultural habitats characterized by high plant species richness but may vary in their ability to support wild pollinators, particularly bees. In gardens, pollinators are valued for crop production. In nurseries, ornamental plants rarely require pollination; thus, the potential of nurseries to support pollinators has not been examined. We asked how these habitats vary in their ability to support wild bees, and what habitat features relate to this variability. In 19 gardens and 11 nurseries in California, USA, we compared how local habitat and landscape features affected wild bee species abundance and richness. To assess local features, we estimated floral richness and measured ground cover as proxies for food and nesting resources, respectively. To assess landscape features, we measured impervious land cover surrounding each site. Our analyses showed that differences in floral richness, local habitat size, and the amount of urban land cover impacted garden wild bee species richness. In nurseries, floral richness and the proportion of native plant species impacted wild bee abundance and richness. We suggest management guidelines for supporting wild pollinators in both habitats.

Honeybee dietary neonicotinoid exposure is associated with pollen collection from agricultural weeds

Neonicotinoid insecticides have been linked to bee declines. However, tracking the primary exposure route for bees in the field has proven to be a major logistical challenge, impeding efforts to restore pollinator health in agricultural landscapes. We quantified neonicotinoid concentrations and botanical species composition in 357 pollen samples collected from 114 commercial honeybee colonies placed along a gradient of agricultural intensity between June and September. Neonicotinoid concentrations increased through the season, peaking at the end of August. As a result, concentrations in pollen were negatively associated with collection from woody and crop plants that flower early-mid season, and positively associated with collection from herbaceous plants that flower mid-late season. Higher clothianidin and thiamethoxam residues were correlated with samples containing a greater proportion of pollen collected from agricultural weeds. The percentage of agricultural land within 1500 m was positively correlated with thiamethoxam concentration; however, this spatial relationship was far weaker than the relationship with the proportion of pollen collected from herbaceous plants. These results indicate that both plant species identity and agricultural dominance are important in determining honeybee neonicotinoid exposure through the pollen diet, but that uncultivated plants associated with agriculture are the source of the greatest acute exposure.