In-Hive Acaricides Alter Biochemical and Morphological Indicators of Honey Bee Nutrition, Immunity, and Development.

The honey bee is a widely managed crop pollinator that provides the agricultural industry with the sustainability and economic viability needed to satisfy the food and fiber needs of our society. Excessive exposure to apicultural pesticides is one of many factors that has been implicated in the reduced number of managed bee colonies available for crop pollination services. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of exposure to commonly used, beekeeper-applied apicultural acaricides on established biochemical indicators of bee nutrition and immunity, as well as morphological indicators of growth and development. The results described here demonstrate that exposure to tau-fluvalinate and coumaphos has an impact on 1) macronutrient indicators of bee nutrition by reducing protein and carbohydrate levels, 2) a marker of social immunity, by increasing glucose oxidase activity, and 3) morphological indicators of growth and development, by altering body weight, head width, and wing length. While more work is necessary to fully understand the broader implications of these findings, the results suggest that reduced parasite stress due to chemical interventions may be offset by nutritional and immune stress.

Assessment of the adverse effects of the acaricide amitraz: in vitro evaluation of genotoxicity.

Amitraz is a formamidine widely used in Veterinary Medicine for the treatment of ectoparasites. It is a highly liposoluble compound that is quickly absorbed through the skin and mucous membranes, thus making exposure potentially dangerous for humans and animals. The aim of this study was to compare the genotoxic potential of the active constituent of the insecticide amitraz and a commercial product containing amitraz in vitro in hamster cells. The induction of primary DNA damage was evaluated by alkaline single-cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay) and the apoptotic ability was examined by the Annexin V/propidium iodide staining assay. The commercial formulation significantly increased the index of DNA damage at concentrations of 2.50-3.75 µg/mL compared to the control. The active constituent only induced significant DNA damage with the highest concentration (3.75 µg/mL). Although both tested products increased the frequency of cell death, neither of them induced significant differences. Genotoxic potential is a primary risk factor for long-term effects such as carcinogenic and reproductive toxicology. Results presented here highlight the need for further investigation of the potential health risk of this veterinary medicine.

Compatibility of traditional and novel acaricides with bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): a first laboratory assessment of toxicity and sublethal effects.

BACKGROUND: This project assessed the potential hazards of different classical and novel acaricides against an important non-target and beneficial insect for the pollination of wild flowers and cultivated crops, the bumblebee Bombus terrestris (L). Twenty-three acaricides used commercially in the control of phytophagous mites (Acari) were tested in greenhouses and/or the open field. Side effects included acute mortality and also sublethal effects on nest reproduction. The different compounds were administered in the laboratory via three different worst-case field scenario routes of exposure: dermal contact and orally via the drinking of treated sugar water and via treated pollen. The compounds were tested at their respective maximum field recommended concentration (MFRC), and, when strong lethal effects were observed, a dose-response assay with a dilution series of the MFRC was undertaken to calculate LC(50) values. RESULTS: From the different acaricide classes, several chemistries caused high levels of acute toxicity in bumblebee workers, especially bifenthrin and abamectin which resulted in 100% mortality by contact. In addition, several acaricides tested were found to have a detrimental effect on drone production. For oral exposures via treated sugar water, the dose-response assay showed the LC(50) values for abamectin, bifenazate, bifenthrin and etoxazole to be 1/15 MFRC (1.17 mg AI L(-1)), 1/10 MFRC (9.6 mg AI L(-1)), 1/83 MFRC (0.36 mg AI L(-1)) and 1/13 MFRC (4.4 mg AI L(-1)) respectively, indicating that their use should be carefully evaluated. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results suggest that most of the acaricides tested are compatible with bumblebees, with the exceptions of abamectin, bifenazate, bifenthrin and etoxazole. However, the risks also depended on the type of treatment. As a result, the sugar water treatment seems to present the worst-case situation of exposure, indicating that this approach is suitable for determining the hazards of pesticides against bumblebees. Finally, it is suggested that future tier testing under more field-related conditions is required for a final decision of their risks.