Diverse pollen nutrition can improve the development of solitary bees but does not mitigate negative pesticide impacts

Floral resource loss and pesticide exposure are major threats to bees in intensively managed agroecosystems, but interactions among these drivers remain poorly understood. Altered composition and lowered diversity of pollen nutrition may reinforce negative pesticide impacts on bees. Here we investigated the development and survival of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis provisioned with three different pollen types, as well as a mixture of these types representing a higher pollen diversity. We exposed bees of each nutritional treatment to five pesticides at different concentrations in the laboratory. Two field-realistic concentrations of three nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) modulating insecticides (thiacloprid, sulfoxaflor and flupyradifurone), as well as of two fungicides (azoxystrobin and tebuconazole) were examined. We further measured the expression of two detoxification genes (CYP9BU1, CYP9BU2) under exposure to thiacloprid across different nutrition treatments as a potential mechanistic pathway driving pesticide-nutrition interactions. We found that more diverse pollen nutrition reduced development time, enhanced pollen efficacy (cocoon weight divided by consumed pollen weight) and pollen consumption, and increased weight of O. bicornis after larval development (cocoon weight). Contrary to fungicides, high field-realistic concentrations of all three insecticides negatively affected O. bicornis by extending development times. Moreover, sulfoxaflor and flupyradifurone also reduced pollen efficacy and cocoon weight, and sulfoxaflor reduced pollen consumption and increased mortality. The expression of detoxification genes differed across pollen nutrition types, but was not enhanced after exposure to thiacloprid. Our findings highlight that lowered diversity of pollen nutrition and high field-realistic exposure to nAChR modulating insecticides negatively affected the development of O. bicornis, but we found no mitigation of negative pesticide impacts through increased pollen diversity. These results have important implications for risk assessment for bee pollinators, indicating that negative effects of nAChR modulating insecticides to developing solitary bees are currently underestimated.

Real-time monitoring of honeybee colony daily activity and bee loss rates can highlight the risk posed by a pesticide

Information on honeybee foraging performance and especially bee loss rates at the colony level are crucial for evaluating the magnitude of effects due to pesticide exposure, thereby ensuring that protection goals for honeybee colonies are met (i.e. threshold of acceptable effects). However, current methods for monitoring honeybee foraging activity and mortality are very approximate (visual records) or are time-limited and mostly based on single cohort analysis. We therefore assess the potential of bee counters, that enable a colony-level and continuous monitoring of bee flight activity and mortality, in pesticide risk assessment. After assessing the background activity and bee loss rates, we exposed colonies to two concentrations of sulfoxaflor (a neurotoxic insecticide) in sugar syrup: a concentration that was considered to be field realistic (0.59 μg/ml) and a higher concentration (2.36 μg/ml) representing a worst-case exposure scenario. We did not find any effect of the field-realistic concentration on flight activity and bee loss rates. However, a two-fold decrease in daily flight activity and a 10-fold increase in daily bee losses were detected in colonies exposed to the highest sulfoxaflor concentration as compared to before exposure. When compared to the theoretical trigger values associated with the specific protection goal of 7 % colony-size reduction, the observed fold changes in daily bee losses were often found to be at risk for colonies. In conclusion, the real-time and colony-level monitoring of bee loss rates, combined with threshold values indicating at which levels bee loss rates threaten the colony, have great potential for improving regulatory pesticide risk assessments for honeybees under field conditions.

Pesticide risk assessment: honeybee workers are not all equal regarding the risk posed by exposure to pesticides

Toxicological studies in honeybees have long shown that a single pesticide dose or concentration does not necessarily induce a single response. Inter-individual differences in pesticide sensitivity and/or the level of exposure (e.g., ingestion of pesticide-contaminated matrices) may explain this variability in risk posed by a pesticide. Therefore, to better inform pesticide risk assessment for honeybees, we studied the risk posed by pesticides to two behavioral castes, nurse, and forager bees, which are largely represented within colonies and which exhibit large differences in their physiological backgrounds. For that purpose, we determined the sensitivity of nurses and foragers to azoxystrobin (fungicide) and sulfoxaflor (insecticide) upon acute or chronic exposure. Azoxystrobin was found to be weakly toxic to both types of bees. However, foragers were more sensitive to sulfoxaflor than nurses upon acute and chronic exposure. This phenomenon was not explained by better sulfoxaflor metabolization in nurses, but rather by differences in body weight (nurses being 1.6 times heavier than foragers). Foragers consistently consumed more sugar syrup than nurses, and this increased consumption was even more pronounced with pesticide-contaminated syrup (at specific concentrations). Altogether, the stronger susceptibility and exposure of foragers to sulfoxaflor contributed to increases of 2 and tenfold for the acute and chronic risk quotients, respectively, compared to nurses. In conclusion, to increase the safety margin and avoid an under-estimation of the risk posed by insecticides to honeybees, we recommend systematically including forager bees in regulatory tests.

Variations in Nutritional Requirements Across Bee Species

With 2,000 species currently recorded in Europe, bees are a highly diversified and efficient group of pollinating insects. They obtain their nutrients from nectar and pollen of flowers. However, the chemical composition of these resources, especially of pollen (e.g., protein, lipid, amino acids, fatty acids, or sterol content), is highly variable among plant species. While it is well-known that bees show interspecific variation in their floral choices, there is a lack of information on the nutritional requirements of different bee species. We therefore developed original experiments in laboratory conditions to evaluate the interspecific variations in bee nutritional requirements. We analyzed the chemical content of eight pollen blends, different in terms of protein, lipid, amino acids, and sterols total concentration and profiles. Each pollen blend was provided to four different bee model species: honey bees (Apis mellifera), bumblebees (Bombus terrestris), mason bees (Osmia bicornis and Osmia cornuta). For each species, specific protocols were used to monitor their development (e.g., weight, timing, survival) and resource collection. Overall, we found that the nutritional requirements across those species are different, and that a low-quality diet for one species is not necessarily low-quality for another one. While honey bees are negatively impacted by diets with a high protein content (~40%), bumblebees and mason bees develop normally on these diets but struggle on diets with a low total amino acid and sterol content, specifically with low concentrations of 24-methylenecholesterol and β-sitosterol. Overall, our study supports the need of conserving and/or introducing plant diversity into managed ecosystems to meet the natural nutritional preferences of bees at species and community level.

Delayed effects of a single dose of a neurotoxic pesticide (sulfoxaflor) on honeybee foraging activity

Pesticide risk-assessment guidelines for honeybees (Apis mellifera) generally require determining the acute toxicity of a chemical over the short-term through fix-duration tests. However, potential long-lasting or delayed effects resulting from an acute exposure (e.g. a single dose) are often overlooked, although the modification of a developmental process may have life-long consequences. To investigate this question, we exposed young honeybee workers to a single sublethal field-realistic dose of a neurotoxic pesticide, sulfoxaflor, at one of two amounts (16 or 60 ng), at the moment when they initiated orientation flights (preceding foraging activity). We then tracked in the field their flight activity and lifespan with automated life-long monitoring devices. Both amounts of sulfoxaflor administered reduced the total number of flights but did not affect bee survival and flight duration. When looking at the time series of flight activity, effects were not immediate but delayed until foraging activity with a decrease in the daily number of foraging flights and consequently in their total number (24 and 33% less for the 16 and 60 ng doses, respectively). The results of our study therefore blur the general assumption in honeybee toxicology that acute exposure results in immediate and rapid effects and call for long-term recording and/or time-to-effect measurements, even upon exposure to a single dose of pesticide.

Pollen nutrition fosters honeybee tolerance to pesticides

A reduction in floral resource abundance and diversity is generally observed in agro-ecosystems, along with widespread exposure to pesticides. Therefore, a better understanding on how the availability and quality of pollen diets can modulate honeybee sensitivity to pesticides is required. For that purpose, we evaluated the toxicity of acute exposure and chronic exposures to field realistic and higher concentrations of azoxystrobin (fungicide) and sulfoxaflor (insecticide) in honeybees provided with pollen diets of differing qualities (named S and BQ pollens). We found that pollen intake reduced the toxicity of the acute doses of pesticides. Contrary to azoxystrobin, chronic exposures to sulfoxaflor increased by 1.5- to 12-fold bee mortality, which was reduced by pollen intake. Most importantly, the risk of death upon exposure to a high concentration of sulfoxaflor was significantly lower for the S pollen diet when compared with the BQ pollen diet. This reduced pesticide toxicity was associated with a higher gene expression of vitellogenin, a glycoprotein that promotes bee longevity, a faster sulfoxaflor metabolization and a lower concentration of the phytochemical p-coumaric acid, known to upregulate detoxification enzymes. Thus, our study revealed that pollen quality can influence the ability of bees to metabolize pesticides and withstand their detrimental effects, providing another strong argument for the restoration of suitable foraging habitat.

Pesticide risk assessment in honeybees: Toward the use of behavioral and reproductive performances as assessment endpoints

The growing gap between new evidence of pesticide toxicity in honeybees and conventional toxicological assays recommended by regulatory test guidelines emphasizes the need to complement current lethal endpoints with sublethal endpoints. In this context, behavioral and reproductive performances have received growing interest since the 2000s, likely due to their ecological relevance and/or the emergence of new technologies. We review the biological interests and methodological measurements of these predominantly studied endpoints and discuss their possible use in the pesticide risk assessment procedure based on their standardization level, simplicity and ecological relevance. It appears that homing flights and reproduction have great potential for pesticide risk assessment, mainly due to their ecological relevance. If exploratory research studies in ecotoxicology have paved the way toward a better understanding of pesticide toxicity in honeybees, the next objective will then be to translate the most relevant behavioral and reproductive endpoints into regulatory test methods. This will require more comparative studies and improving their ecological relevance. This latter goal may be facilitated by the use of population dynamics models for scaling up the consequences of adverse behavioral and reproductive effects from individuals to colonies.