Description and validation of an improved method to feed solitary bees (Osmia spp.) known amounts of pesticides.

Pesticide exposure is an important driver of bee declines. Laboratory toxicity tests provide baseline information on the potential effects of pesticides on bees, but current risk assessment schemes rely on one species, the highly social honey bee, Apis mellifera, and there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which this species is a suitable surrogate for other pollinators. For this reason, Osmia cornuta and Osmia bicornis have been proposed as model solitary bee species in the EU risk assessment scheme. The use of solitary bees in risk assessment requires the development of new methodologies adjusted to the biology of these species. For example, oral dosing methods used with honey bees cannot be readily applied to solitary bees due to differences in feeding behaviour and social interactions. In this study, we describe the "petal method", a laboratory feeding method, and validate its use in acute and chronic exposure oral tests with Osmia spp. We conducted five experiments in which we compared the performance of several artificial flowers combining visual and olfactory cues against the petal method, or in which variations of the petal method were confronted. We then use the results of these experiments to optimize the feeding arenas and propose standardized methods for both acute and chronic exposure tests. The petal method provides high levels of feeding success, thus reducing the number of bees needed. It works with a wide variety of petal species and with both female and male Osmia spp., thus ensuring reproducibility across studies. To validate the use of the petal method in ecotoxicology tests, we assess the toxicity of a standard reference insecticide, dimethoate, in O. cornuta adults and determine LD50 values for this species. The petal method should facilitate the inclusion of solitary bees in risk assessment schemes therefore increasing the protection coverage of pesticide regulation.

Toxicity of the insecticide sulfoxaflor alone and in combination with the fungicide fluxapyroxad in three bee species.

The sulfoximine insecticide sulfoxaflor is regarded as a potential substitute for neonicotinoids that were recently banned in the EU due to their side effects on bees. Like neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor acts as a competitive modulator of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. In agricultural environments, bees are commonly exposed to combinations of pesticides, and neonicotinoids are known to interact synergistically with fungicides. The objective of our study is to assess the acute oral toxicity of sulfoxaflor alone and in combination with a single dose of fluxapyroxad, a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicide, in three bee species: Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis. Because synergism may be dose-dependent, we tested a range of sulfoxaflor doses. Synergistic effects were assessed using three different approaches: Bliss criterion of drugs independence, ratio test comparing LD50s and model deviation ratio. Osmia bicornis was the most sensitive species to sulfoxaflor and both O. bicornis and A. mellifera showed significant synergism between the insecticide and the fungicide. For the most part, these synergistic effects were weak and only occurred at early assessment times and intermediate sulfoxaflor doses. The potential ecological relevance of these effects should be confirmed in field and/or cage studies. Overall, our laboratory results demonstrate that sulfoxaflor is somewhat less toxic than the recently banned neonicotinoids imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, but much more toxic than other neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, thiacloprid) still in use in the EU at the time this study was conducted.