A spatially explicit model of landscape pesticide exposure to bees: Development, exploration, and evaluation

Pesticides represent one of the greatest threats to bees and other beneficial insects in agricultural landscapes. Potential exposure is generated through compound- and crop-specific patterns of pesticide use over space and time and unique degradation behavior among compounds. Realized exposure develops through bees foraging from their nests across the spatiotemporal mosaic of floral resources and associated pesticides throughout the landscape. Despite the recognized importance of a landscape-wide approach to assessing exposure, we lack a sufficiently-evaluated predictive framework to inform mitigation decisions and environmental risk assessment for bees. We address this gap by developing a bee pesticide exposure model that incorporates spatiotemporal pesticide use patterns, estimated rates of pesticide degradation, floral resource dynamics across habitats, and bee foraging movements. We parameterized the model with pesticide use data from a public database containing crop-field- and date-specific records of uses throughout our study region over an entire year. We evaluate the model performance in predicting bee pesticide exposure using a dataset of pesticide residues in pollens gathered by bumble bees (Bombus vosnesenskii) returning to colonies across 14 spatially independent landscapes in Northern California. We applied alternative model formulations of pesticide accumulation and degradation, floral resource seasonality, and bee foraging behavior to evaluate different levels of detail for predicting observed pesticide exposure. Our best model explained 73 % of observed variation in pesticide exposure of bumble bee colonies, with generally positive correlations for the dominant compounds. Timing and location of pesticide use were integral, but more detailed parameterizations of pesticide degradation, floral resources, and bee foraging improved the predictions little if at all. Our results suggest that this approach to predict bees' pesticide exposure has value in extending from the local field scale to the landscape in environmental risk assessment and for exploring mitigation options to support bees in agricultural landscapes.

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.

Fungicides and strawberry pollination-Effects on floral scent, pollen attributes and bumblebee behavior

Fungicides are used in agriculture to protect crops from various fungal diseases. However, they may modulate the plants metabolism. Moreover, fungicides can accumulate in the environment and may cause toxic effects on non-target organisms such as nectar microbes and pollinators. Nectar microbes contribute to the volatile profile of flowers and can influence pollinators behaviour. Thus, fungicide treatment could potentially affect the pollination. In this study, we investigated the influence of fungicide treatment on floral attributes as well as the behavioural impact on bumblebees. In separate experiments, we used one or both strawberry cultivars (Fragaria × ananassa var. Darselect and Malwina), which were either kept untreated (control) or treated with either Cuprozin® progress or SWITCH® fungicide. We analysed various flower traits including volatiles, pollen weight, pollen protein, and the attraction of bumblebees towards the flowers in the greenhouse. Additionally, we analysed the viability of pollen and pollen live-to-dead ratio, as well as the composition of nectar fungi in the field. A treatment with Cuprozin® progress led to a lower emission of floral volatiles and a slightly lower pollen protein content. This had no impact on the visit latency of bumblebees but on the overall visit frequency of these flowers. The treatment with the fungicide SWITCH® resulted in a higher emission of floral volatiles as well as a delayed first visit by bumblebees. Furthermore, flowers of control plants were visited more often than those treated with the two fungicides. Plant-pollinator interactions are highly complex, with many contributing factors. Fungicides can have an impact on the pollen quality and pollinator attraction, potentially leading to an altered pollen dispersal by pollinators and a change in fruit quality.

Implementing IPM in crop management simultaneously improves the health of managed bees and enhances the diversity of wild pollinator communities

Impacts of insecticide use on the health of wild and managed pollinators have been difficult to accurately quantify in the field. Existing designs tend to focus on single crops, even though highly mobile bees routinely forage across crop boundaries. We created fields of pollinator-dependent watermelon surrounded by corn, regionally important crops in the Midwestern US. These fields were paired at multiple sites in 2017-2020 with the only difference being pest management regimes: a standard set of conventional management (CM) practices vs. an integrated pest management (IPM) system that uses scouting and pest thresholds to determine if/when insecticides are used. Between these two systems we compared the performance (e.g., growth, survival) of managed pollinators-honey bees (Apis mellifera), bumble bees (Bombus impatiens)-along with the abundance and diversity of wild pollinators. Compared to CM fields, IPM led to higher growth and lower mortality of managed bees, while also increasing the abundance (+ 147%) and richness (+ 128%) of wild pollinator species, and lower concentrations of neonicotinoids in the hive material of both managed bees. By replicating realistic changes to pest management, this experiment provides one of the first demonstrations whereby tangible improvements to pollinator health and crop visitation result from IPM implementation in agriculture.

Pesticide mixtures detected in crop and non-target wild plant pollen and nectar

Cultivation of mass flowering entomophilous crops benefits from the presence of managed and wild pollinators, who visit flowers to forage on pollen and nectar. However, management of these crops typically includes application of pesticides, the presence of which may pose a hazard for pollinators foraging in an agricultural environment. To determine the levels of potential exposure to pesticides, their presence and concentration in pollen and nectar need assessing, both within and beyond the target crop plants. We selected ten pesticide compounds and one metabolite and analysed their occurrence in a crop (Brassica napus) and a wild plant (Rubus fruticosus agg.), which was flowering in field edges. Nectar and pollen from both plants were collected from five spring and five winter sown B. napus fields in Ireland, and were tested for pesticide residues, using QuEChERS and Liquid Chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Pesticide residues were detected in plant pollen and nectar of both plants. Most detections were from fields with no recorded application of the respective compounds in that year, but higher concentrations were observed in recently treated fields. Overall, more residues were detected in B. napus pollen and nectar than in the wild plant, and B. napus pollen had the highest mean concentration of residues. All matrices were contaminated with at least three compounds, and the most frequently detected compounds were fungicides. The most common compound mixture was comprised of the fungicides azoxystrobin, boscalid, and the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin, which was not recently applied on the fields. Our results indicate that persistent compounds like the neonicotinoids, should be continuously monitored for their presence and fate in the field environment. The toxicological evaluation of the compound mixtures identified in the present study should be performed, to determine their impacts on foraging insects that may be exposed to them.

Efficient polymer-mediated delivery system for thiocyclam: Nanometerization remarkably improves the bioactivity toward green peach aphids

The unscientific application of synthetic pesticides has brought various negative effects on the environment, hindering the sustainable development of agriculture. Nanoparticles can be applied as carriers to improve pesticide delivery, showing great potential in the development of pesticide formulation in recent years. Herein, a star polymer (SPc) was constructed as an efficient pesticide nanocarrier/adjuvant that could spontaneously assemble with thiocyclam or monosultap into a complex, through hydrophobic association and hydrogen bonding, respectively, with the pesticide-loading contents of 42.54% and 19.3%. This complexation reduced the particle sizes of thiocyclam from 543.54 to 52.74 nm for pure thiocyclam, and 3 814.16 to 1 185.89 nm for commercial preparation (cp) of thiocyclam. Interestingly, the introduction of SPc decreased the contact angles of both pure and cp thiocyclam on plant leaves, and increased the plant uptake of cp thiocyclam to 2.4-1.9 times of that without SPc. Meanwhile, the SPc could promote the bioactivity of pure/cp thiocyclam against green peach aphids through leaf dipping method and root application. For leaf dipping method, the 50% lethal concentration decreased from 0.532 to 0.221 g/L after the complexation of pure thiocyclam with SPc, and that decreased from 0.390 to 0.251 g/L for cp thiocyclam. SPc seems a promising adjuvant for nanometerization of both pure and cp insecticides, which is beneficial for improving the delivery efficiency and utilization rate of pesticides.

Prioritizing pollinators over pests: wild bees are more important than beetle damage for watermelon yield

Insect pests and pollinators can interact directly and indirectly to affect crop production; however, impacts of these interactions on marketable yield are little known. Thus, the evaluation of interactions between pests and pollinators are needed to best prioritize management efforts. Over 2 years, we evaluated the impact of pollinator visitation and/or beetle (Acalymma vittatum) infestation on fruit set and yield in seedless watermelon production. In 2020, we tested the main effect of pollinator visitation: two or eight honeybee visits, two wild bee visits, hand pollinated and open pollinated. In 2021, we crossed wild and managed pollinator visitation (two or four honeybee visits, two or four wild bee visits, hand pollinated and open pollinated) with varying beetle infestation levels (0, 3, 6 and 9 beetles/plant). In both years, wild bees contributed significantly to high fruit yields, and exclusive visitation from wild bees increased yield by a factor of 1.5-3 compared to honeybees. In 2021, pollination was the only significant factor for fruit set and marketable yield even when compared to the varying beetle infestation levels. These data advocate for a reprioritization of management, to conserve and protect wild bee pollination, which could be more critical than avoiding pest damage for ensuring high yields.

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.

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.

IPM reduces insecticide applications by 95% while maintaining or enhancing crop yields through wild pollinator conservation

Environmental damage from insecticide overuse is a major concern, particularly for conservation of “good” insects such as pollinators that ensure stable production of food crops like fruits and vegetables. However, insecticides are also necessary for farmers to manage “bad” insects (i.e., pests), and thus, a more holistic view of crop management needs to account for the proper balance between the beneficial and detrimental aspects of pesticides. Here, we used multiyear field experiments with a paired corn–watermelon cropping system to show that insecticide use can be dramatically reduced (by ∼95%) while maintaining or even increasing yields through the conservation of wild bees as crop pollinators. These data demonstrate that food production and ecosystem sustainability are not necessarily conflicting goals.

Pest management practices in modern industrial agriculture have increasingly relied on insurance-based insecticides such as seed treatments that are poorly correlated with pest density or crop damage. This approach, combined with high invertebrate toxicity for newer products like neonicotinoids, makes it challenging to conserve beneficial insects and the services that they provide. We used a 4-y experiment using commercial-scale fields replicated across multiple sites in the midwestern United States to evaluate the consequences of adopting integrated pest management (IPM) using pest thresholds compared with standard conventional management (CM). To do so, we employed a systems approach that integrated coproduction of a regionally dominant row crop (corn) with a pollinator-dependent specialty crop (watermelon). Pest populations, pollination rates, crop yields, and system profitability were measured. Despite higher pest densities and/or damage in both crops, IPM-managed pests rarely reached economic thresholds, resulting in 95% lower insecticide use (97 versus 4 treatments in CM and IPM, respectively, across all sites, crops, and years). In IPM corn, the absence of a neonicotinoid seed treatment had no impact on yields, whereas IPM watermelon experienced a 129% increase in flower visitation rate by pollinators, resulting in 26% higher yields. The pollinator-enhancement effect under IPM management was mediated entirely by wild bees; foraging by managed honey bees was unaffected by treatments and, overall, did not correlate with crop yield. This proof-of-concept experiment mimicking on-farm practices illustrates that cropping systems in major agricultural commodities can be redesigned via IPM to exploit ecosystem services without compromising, and in some cases increasing, yields.

Supplemental forage ameliorates the negative impact of insecticides on bumblebees in a pollinator-dependent crop

Insecticide use and insufficient forage are two of the leading stressors to pollinators in agroecosystems. While these factors have been well studied individually, the experimental designs do not reflect real-world conditions where insecticide exposure and lack of forage occur simultaneously and could interactively suppress pollinator health. Using outdoor enclosures, we tested the effects of insecticides (imidacloprid + lambda-cyhalothrin) and non-crop forage (clover) in a factorial design, measuring the survival, behaviour and performance of bumblebees (Bombus impatiens), as well as pollination of the focal crop, watermelon. Colony survival was synergistically reduced to 17% in watermelon alone + insecticides (survival was 100% in all other treatments). However, behavioural shifts in foraging were mainly owing to insecticides (e.g. 95% reduced visitation rate to watermelon flowers), while impacts on hive performance were primarily driven by clover presence (e.g. 374% increase in the number of live eggs). Insecticide-mediated reductions in foraging decreased crop pollination (fruit set) by 32%. Altogether, these data indicate that both insecticides and non-crop forage play integral roles in shaping pollinator health in agricultural landscapes, but the relative importance and interaction of these two factors depend on which aspect of ‘health’ is being considered.