Novel indices reveal that pollinator exposure to pesticides varies across biological compartments and crop surroundings.

Declines in insect pollinators have been linked to a range of causative factors such as disease, loss of habitats, the quality and availability of food, and exposure to pesticides. Here, we analysed an extensive dataset generated from pesticide screening of foraging insects, pollen-nectar stores/beebread, pollen and ingested nectar across three species of bees collected at 128 European sites set in two types of crop. In this paper, we aimed to (i) derive a new index to summarise key aspects of complex pesticide exposure data and (ii) understand the links between pesticide exposures depicted by the different matrices, bee species and apple orchards versus oilseed rape crops. We found that summary indices were highly correlated with the number of pesticides detected in the related matrix but not with which pesticides were present. Matrices collected from apple orchards generally contained a higher number of pesticides (7.6 pesticides per site) than matrices from sites collected from oilseed rape crops (3.5 pesticides), with fungicides being highly represented in apple crops. A greater number of pesticides were found in pollen-nectar stores/beebread and pollen matrices compared with nectar and bee body matrices. Our results show that for a complete assessment of pollinator pesticide exposure, it is necessary to consider several different exposure routes and multiple species of bees across different agricultural systems.

Distribution of infectious and parasitic agents among three sentinel bee species across European agricultural landscapes.

Infectious and parasitic agents (IPAs) and their associated diseases are major environmental stressors that jeopardize bee health, both alone and in interaction with other stressors. Their impact on pollinator communities can be assessed by studying multiple sentinel bee species. Here, we analysed the field exposure of three sentinel managed bee species (Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis) to 11 IPAs (six RNA viruses, two bacteria, three microsporidia). The sentinel bees were deployed at 128 sites in eight European countries adjacent to either oilseed rape fields or apple orchards during crop bloom. Adult bees of each species were sampled before their placement and after crop bloom. The IPAs were detected and quantified using a harmonised, high-throughput and semi-automatized qPCR workflow. We describe differences among bee species in IPA profiles (richness, diversity, detection frequencies, loads and their change upon field exposure, and exposure risk), with no clear patterns related to the country or focal crop. Our results suggest that the most frequent IPAs in adult bees are more appropriate for assessing the bees' IPA exposure risk. We also report positive correlations of IPA loads supporting the potential IPA transmission among sentinels, suggesting careful consideration should be taken when introducing managed pollinators in ecologically sensitive environments.

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.