Precision farming and environmental pesticide regulation in the EU-How does it fit together?

Precision farming technology allows pesticides to be applied precisely to the target while leaving the rest of the field untreated. In the regulation of pesticides, however, a homogeneously sprayed field is considered as the standard scenario. To this end, the current status of pesticide risk assessment from the perspective of terrestrial vertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates, and plants as well as aquatic organisms was examined with respect to the EU registration of a pesticide to be applied via precision farming techniques. We highlight which and how respective parts of the technical procedures could be adapted to account for this technology. Our results demonstrate that large parts of risk assessment procedures can be modified, reducing pesticide application and the exposure to the environment. However, further studies and definite procedures are essential to realistically apply, for example, area restriction in the currently required environmental risk assessment schemes. Precision farming has then great potential to achieve the political and public goal of reducing pesticide use, increasing environmental safety, and enhancing the needs of a sustainable agricultural practice. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:17-23. © 2022 SETAC.

Results of Ring-Testing of a Semifield Study Design to Investigate Potential Impacts of Crop Protection Products on Bumblebees (Hymenoptera, Apidae) and a Proposal of a Potential Test Design.

In Europe, the risk assessment for bees at the European Union or national level has always focussed on potential impacts on honeybees. During the revision of the European Food Safety Authority bee guidance it was explicitly stated that bumblebees and solitary bees should be considered as well and consequently concerns were raised regarding the representativeness of honeybees for these other bee species. These concerns originate from differences in size as well as differences in behavioral and life history traits of other bee species. In response to this concern, the non-Apis working group of the International Commission for Plant-Pollinator Relationships initiated a ring-test of a semifield tunnel study design using the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Nine laboratories participated, validating and improving the proposed design over a 2-year period. The intention of the ring-test experiments was to develop and if possible, establish a test protocol to conduct more standardized semifield tests with bumblebees. In the present study, the results of the ring-tests are summarized and discussed to give recommendations for a promising experimental design. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2548-2564. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Results of 2-Year Ring Testing of a Semifield Study Design to Investigate Potential Impacts of Plant Protection Products on the Solitary Bees Osmia Bicornis and Osmia Cornuta and a Proposal for a Suitable Test Design.

There are various differences in size, behavior, and life history traits of non-Apis bee species compared with honey bees (Apis mellifera; Linnaeus, 1758). Currently, the risk assessment for bees in the international and national process of authorizing plant protection products has been based on honey bee data as a surrogate organism for non-Apis bees. To evaluate the feasibility of a semifield tunnel test for Osmia bicornis (Linnaeus, 1758) and Osmia cornuta (Latreille, 1805), a protocol was developed by the non-Apis working group of the International Commission for Plant-Pollinator Relationships, consisting of experts from authorities, academia, and industry. A total of 25 studies were performed over a 2-yr period testing a replicated control against a replicated positive control using either a dimethoate or diflubenzuron treatment. Studies were regarded to be valid, if ≥30% of released females were found to occupy the nesting units in the night/morning before the application (establishment). Thirteen studies were regarded to be valid and were analyzed further. Parameters analyzed were nest occupation, flight activity, cell production (total and per female), cocoon production (total and per female), emergence success, sex ratio, and mean weight of females and males. Dimethoate was a reliable positive control at the tested rate of 75 g a.i./ha, once >30% females had established, displaying acute effects such as reduction in flight activity, increase in adult mortality (shown by nest occupation), and reproduction ability of the females (total cell and cocoon production). On the other hand, no effects on larval and pupal development were observed. The growth regulator diflubenzuron had statistically significant effects on brood development, causing mortality of eggs and larvae at a rate of approximately 200 g a.i./ha, whereas fenoxycarb did not cause any significant effects at the tested rates of 300 and 600 g a.i./ha. In conclusion, the ring-test protocol proved to be adequate once the study comprised a well-established population of female Osmia bees, and the results improved in the second year as the laboratories increased their experience with the test organism. It is noted that the success of a study strongly depends on the experience of the experimenter, the crop quality, the quality of the cocoons, and the weather conditions. Based on these finding, recommendations for a semifield study design with Osmia spp. are proposed. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:236-250. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Comparison of Pesticide Exposure in Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Implications for Risk Assessments.

To date, regulatory pesticide risk assessments have relied on the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as a surrogate test species for estimating the risk of pesticide exposure to all bee species. However, honey bees and non-Apis bees may differ in their susceptibility and exposure to pesticides. In 2017, a workshop ('Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-Apis Bees') was held to assess if honey bee risk assessment frameworks are reflective of non-Apis bee pesticide exposure. In this article, we summarize the workshop discussions on bumble bees (Bombus spp.). We review the life history and foraging behavior of bumble bees and honey bees and discuss how these traits may influence routes and levels of exposure for both taxa. Overall, the major pesticide exposure routes for bumble bees and honey bees are similar; however, bumble bees face additional exposure routes (direct exposure of foraging queens and exposure of larvae and adults to soil residues). Furthermore, bumble bees may receive comparatively higher pesticide doses via contact or oral exposure. We conclude that honey bee pesticide risk assessments may not always be protective of bumble bees, especially queens, in terms of exposure. Data needed to reliably quantify pesticide exposure for bumble bees (e.g., food consumption rates, soil residue levels) are lacking. Addressing these knowledge gaps will be crucial before bumble bee exposure can be incorporated into the pesticide risk assessment process. Because bumble bees exhibit appreciable interspecific variation in colony and behavioral characteristics, data relevant to pesticide exposure should be generated for multiple species.

Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Solitary Bees.

Current pesticide risk assessment for bees relies on a single (social) species, the western honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). However, most of the >20,000 bee species worldwide are solitary. Differences in life history traits between solitary bees (SB) and honey bees (HB) are likely to determine differences in routes and levels of pesticide exposure. The objectives of this review are to: 1) compare SB and HB life history traits relevant for risk assessment; 2) summarize current knowledge about levels of pesticide exposure for SB and HB; 3) identify knowledge gaps and research needs; 4) evaluate whether current HB risk assessment schemes cover routes and levels of exposure of SB; and 5) identify potential SB model species for risk assessment. Most SB exposure routes seem well covered by current HB risk assessment schemes. Exceptions to this are exposure routes related to nesting substrates and nesting materials used by SB. Exposure via soil is of particular concern because most SB species nest underground. Six SB species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae - Osmia bicornis L., O. cornifrons Radoszkowski, O. cornuta Latreille, O. lignaria Say, Megachile rotundata F., and Halictidae - Nomia melanderi Cockerell) are commercially available and could be used in risk assessment. Of these, only N. melanderi nests underground, and the rest are cavity-nesters. However, the three Osmia species collect soil to build their nests. Life history traits of cavity-nesting species make them particularly suitable for semifield and, to a lesser extent, field tests. Future studies should address basic biology, rearing methods and levels of exposure of ground-nesting SB species.

First record of a Mermithidae (Nematoda) from the meloid beetle Meloe violaceus Marsham, 1802 (Coleoptera: Meloidae).

A new record of nematode parasitism of meloid beetles is reported and all earlier records are summarised. Rates of parasitism could be influenced by the toxic compound cantharidin that these beetles possess.