Dust abraded from thiamethoxam-treated seed during sowing: Refining the risk assessment for native bees in Brazil.

During sowing using pneumatic machinery, dust may be abraded from pesticide-treated seed and contaminate adjacent bee-attractive off-crop areas. This study quantified the risk to native bees of dust released during sowing of Brazilian crop seeds treated with a thiamethoxam formulation (Cruiser 350FS). To address toxicity to native bees, adult acute contact LD50 data for thiamethoxam were collated from the literature, a species sensitivity distribution generated, and the HD5 calculated. The LD50 HD5 was used to refine the default safety factor applied to the honeybee acute contact LD50 from 10 to 5.45 for thiamethoxam. Crop-specific abraded dust data (Heubach dust and Heubach AI) were generated for seeds treated with Cruiser 350FS sourced from on-farm and industrial facilities. The mean Heubach dust levels was ranked as cotton = maize > sunflower = soybean > drybean. There was no correlation between the measured residues of thiamethoxam (Heubach AI) and those estimated in dust based on the thiamethoxam content of Cruiser 350FS. A hazard quotient (HQ) for each crop (based on application rate, the default dust deposition factor, and the honeybee contact LD50/10) identified risks during sowing for all crops. Refinement of the application rate with the measured 90th percentile Heubach dust (assuming 100% thiamethoxam) resulted in sowing of industrially treated soybean and on-farm treated cotton being identified as risks. Further refinement using either the measured 90th percentile Heubach AI or the acute contact LD50 (HD5 ) resulted in sowing of all crops treated with Cruiser 350FS as being identified as low risk. Similar high quality seed treatment should be demonstrated for other formulations containing insecticides with high toxicity to bees. Data on dust drift from machinery and crops more representative of those in Brazil may allow further refinement of the default dust deposition value of 17% used in this study. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1361-1373. © 2023 SETAC.

Evaluation of a Clinic Education Program for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

A group education program was developed for clinic patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Teaching methods used included the Arthritis Foundation's handbook, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and a lecture by a rheumatologist. The 20 patients in the study were given a multiple choice test before and after the teaching program to determine their knowledge of arthritis. Results showed group education to be an effective teaching device. It was demonstrated that patients learned from reading the handbook alone, but the combination of reading and lecture was found to be a more effective method. Correlation studies showed that prior to group education, patients had a significant knowledge of their disease which was related to native intelligence, formal education, and socio-economic status, but not to duration of disease or length of clinic attendance. This suggests that future patient education experiments should include a pre-instuction test to document prior knowledge.

The use of the Hazard Quotient approach to assess the potential risk to honeybees (Apis mellifera) posed by pesticide residues detected in bee-relevant matrices is not appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Pesticide residue data for pollen and nectar are valuable for characterizing realistic exposure of pollinators, e.g. from agricultural crops, flowering margins. Interpretation of residues relies on comparing exposure with toxicity and the Hazard Quotient (HQ) is widely utilized. However, the HQ (threshold of concern 50) was only validated for foliar sprays, based on application rate as a proxy for exposure, not measured residues in bee-relevant matrices. RESULTS: A review of the literature showed a range of HQ approaches and thresholds of concern used to assess non-foliar applications and residues detected in bee-relevant matrices, mostly pollen. The use of the HQ thresholds to assess risks associated with residue data or non-foliar spray application methods is not validated, does not reflect realistic exposure and the conclusions reached differ substantially from current risk assessment approaches. Re-evaluation of residue data from the first published use of the concentration-based HQ (2013) and a recent paper (2021) reduced the proportion of pesticides where a conclusion of potential risk was reached from 30 to 7% and 28% to 3-6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the applicability of the selected risk assessment approach to the available residue data is needed to enable robust conclusions to be drawn on the potential risk to bees. Use of the HQ approach to assess the risk posed by application methods other than foliar sprays or residues in nectar and pollen is likely to result in unreliable conclusions. An alternative approach should be used to assess the significance of measured residues.

Lower pollen nutritional quality delays nest building and egg laying in Bombus terrestris audax micro-colonies leading to reduced biomass gain.

The performance of Bombus terrestris micro-colonies fed five diets differing in pollen species composition and level of nine essential amino acids (EAA; leucine, lysine, valine, arginine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, threonine, histidine, methionine) was assessed for 37 days by recording total biomass gain, nest building initiation, brood production (eggs, small and large larvae, pupae, drones), nectar, and pollen collection. Stronger colony performance was linked to higher amino acid levels but no consistent differences in biomass gain were recorded between mono- and poly-species diets. Poorest performance occurred in micro-colonies offered pure oilseed rape (OSR) pollen which contained the lowest EAA levels. Reduced micro-colony development (delayed nest initiation and lower brood production) was related to OSR proportion in the diet and lower EAA levels. Results are discussed in relation to selection of plant species in the design of habitats to promote bee populations.

Are honeybees suitable surrogates for use in pesticide risk assessment for non-Apis bees?

Historically, bee regulatory risk assessment for pesticides has centred on the European honeybee (Apis mellifera), primarily due to its availability and adaptability to laboratory conditions. Recently, there have been efforts to develop a battery of laboratory toxicity tests for a range of non-Apis bee species to directly assess the risk to them. However, it is not clear whether the substantial investment associated with the development and implementation of such routine screening will actually improve the level of protection of non-Apis bees. We argue, using published acute toxicity data from a range of bee species and standard regulatory exposure scenarios, that current first-tier honeybee acute risk assessment schemes utilised by regulatory authorities are protective of other bee species and further tests should be conducted only in cases of concern. We propose similar analysis of alternative exposure scenarios (chronic and developmental) once reliable data for non-Apis bees are available to expand our approach to these scenarios. In addition, we propose that in silico (simulation) approaches can then be used to address population-level effects in more field-realistic scenarios. Such an approach could lead to a protective, but also workable, risk assessment for non-Apis species while contributing to pollination security in agricultural landscapes around the globe. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry.

A review of the factors that influence pesticide residues in pollen and nectar: Future research requirements for optimising the estimation of pollinator exposure.

In recent years, the impact of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) on insect pollinator decline has stimulated significant amounts of research, as well as political and public interest. PPP residues have been found in various bee-related matrices, resulting in governmental bodies worldwide releasing guidance documents on methods for the assessment of the overall risk of PPPs to different bee species. An essential part of these risk assessments are PPP residues found in pollen and nectar, as they represent a key route of exposure. However, PPP residue values in these matrices exhibit large variations and are not available for many PPPs and crop species combinations, which results in inaccurate estimations and uncertainties in risk evaluation. Additionally, residue studies on pollen and nectar are expensive and practically challenging. An extrapolation between different cropping scenarios and PPPs is not yet justified, as the behaviour of PPPs in pollen and nectar is poorly understood. Therefore, this review aims to contribute to a better knowledge and understanding of the fate of PPP residues in pollen and nectar and to outline knowledge gaps and future research needs. The literature suggests that four primary factors, the crop type, the application method, the physicochemical properties of a compound and the environmental conditions have the greatest influence on PPP residues in pollen and nectar. However, these factors consist of many sub-factors and initial effects may be disguised by different sampling methodologies, impeding their exact characterisation. Moreover, knowledge about these factors is ambiguous and restricted to a few compounds and plant species. We propose that future research should concentrate on identifying relationships and common features amongst various PPP applications and crops, as well as an overall quantification of the described parameters; in order to enable a reliable estimation of PPP residues in pollen, nectar and other bee matrices.

Workshop on Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-Apis Bees: Foundation and Summaries.

Current pesticide risk assessment practices use the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., as a surrogate to characterize the likelihood of chemical exposure of a candidate pesticide for all bee species. Bees make up a diverse insect group that provides critical pollination services to both managed and wild ecosystems. Accordingly, they display a diversity of behaviors and vary greatly in their lifestyles and phenologies, such as their timing of emergence, degree of sociality, and foraging and nesting behaviors. Some of these factors may lead to disparate or variable routes of exposure when compared to honey bees. For those that possess life histories that are distinct from A. mellifera, further risk assessments may be warranted. In January 2017, 40 bee researchers, representative of regulatory agencies, academia, and agrochemical industries, gathered to discuss the current state of science on pesticide exposure to non-Apis bees and to determine how well honey bee exposure estimates, implemented by different regulatory agencies, may be protective for non-Apis bees. Workshop participants determined that although current risk assessment procedures for honey bees are largely conservative, several routes of exposure are unique to non-Apis bees and warranted further investigation. In this forum article, we discuss these key routes of exposure relevant to non-Apis bees and identify important research gaps that can help inform future bee risk assessment decisions.

Using BEEHAVE to explore pesticide protection goals for European honeybee (Apis melifera L.) worker losses at different forage qualities.

Losses of honeybee colonies are intensely debated and although honeybees suffer multiple stressors, the main focus has been on pesticides. As a result, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) revised the guidance for pesticide risk assessment for honeybees. The European Food Safety Authority reported a protection goal of negligible effect at 7% of colony size and then used the Khoury honeybee colony model to set trigger values for forager losses. However, the Khoury model is very simplistic and simulates colonies in an idealized state. In the present study, the authors demonstrate how a more realistic published honeybee model, BEEHAVE, with a few simple changes, can be used to explore pesticide risks. The results show that forage availability interacts with pesticide-induced worker losses, and colony resilience increases with forage quality. Adding alternative unexposed forage to the landscape also substantially mitigates the effects of pesticide exposure. The results indicate that EFSA's reported protection goal of 7% of colony size and triggers for daily worker losses are overly conservative. The authors conclude that forage availability is critical for colony resilience and that with adequate forage the colonies are resilient to even high levels of worker losses. However, the authors recommend setting protection goals using suboptimal forage conditions to ensure conservatism and for such suboptimal forage, a total of 20% reduction in colony size was safe. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:254-264. © 2016 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Colony impact of pesticide-induced sublethal effects on honeybee workers: A simulation study using BEEHAVE.

Research on neonicotinoids and honeybees have changed focus from direct mortality to sublethal effects. In the present study, a published honeybee model, BEEHAVE, is used to compare induced colony level impact of pesticides including direct mortality, poor brood care, disorientation, and increased handling time in oilseed rape and sunflower crops. Actual effects on individual bees will depend on exposure concentrations, but in the present study large effects were enforced. In oilseed rape, poor brood care had the largest colony impact, because it created a bottleneck for spring build-up of the workforce, and colony impact for all effect types peaked 1 mo after exposure ceased. In sunflower, the later exposure changed the response so colony impact peaked during exposure, and the bottleneck was honey store build-up. In all scenarios, good forage mitigated effects substantially. It is concluded that field studies should continue at least 1 mo after exposure to ensure detection of ecologically relevant sublethal effects. The results indicated that even if a sublethal effect is difficult to detect in the field, subsequent ecologically relevant colony level impacts would be clear if studies are continued for 1 mo after exposure. Guidance for regulatory studies recommends extended observation periods, and published field studies already use extended observation periods, so it is concluded that current methods are adequate for detecting ecologically relevant sublethal effects. Although published laboratory and semifield studies conducted under controlled exposure conditions suggest that sublethal effects may occur, published field studies with neonicotinoid seed treatments, naturally foraging bees, and extended observation periods do not report colony-level effects, suggesting that in these studies no ecologically relevant sublethal effects occurred. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:831-840. © 2016 SETAC.

Neonicotinoids and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): effects on nectar consumption in individual workers.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to quantify whether the presence of three different neonicotinoid insecticides (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam or clothianidin) in sucrose solution results in antifeedant effects in individual worker bumblebees (Bombus terrestris), and, if so, whether this effect is reversible if bees are subsequently offered untreated feed. RESULTS: Bees exposed to imidacloprid displayed a significant dose-dependent reduction in consumption at 10 and 100 µg L(-1), which was reversed when untreated feed was offered. No consistent avoidance/antifeedant response to nectar substitute with thiamethoxam was detected at the more field-realistic dose rates of 1 and 10 µg L(-1), and exposure to the very high 100 µg L(-1) dose rate was followed by 100% mortality of experimental insects. No reduction in food intake was recorded at 1 µg clothianidin L(-1), reduced consumption was noted at 10 µg clothianidin L(-1) and 100% mortality occurred when bees were exposed to rates of 100 µg clothianidin L(-1). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of a direct antifeedant effect of imidacloprid and clothianidin in individual bumblebees but highlights that this may be a compound-specific effect.

Evaluating exposure and potential effects on honeybee brood (Apis mellifera) development using glyphosate as an example.

This study aimed to develop an approach to evaluate potential effects of plant protection products on honeybee brood with colonies at realistic worst-case exposure rates. The approach comprised 2 stages. In the first stage, honeybee colonies were exposed to a commercial formulation of glyphosate applied to flowering Phacelia tanacetifolia with glyphosate residues quantified in relevant matrices (pollen and nectar) collected by foraging bees on days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 postapplication and glyphosate levels in larvae were measured on days 4 and 7. Glyphosate levels in pollen were approximately 10 times higher than in nectar and glyphosate demonstrated rapid decline in both matrices. Residue data along with foraging rates and food requirements of the colony were then used to set dose rates in the effects study. In the second stage, the toxicity of technical glyphosate to developing honeybee larvae and pupae, and residues in larvae, were then determined by feeding treated sucrose directly to honeybee colonies at dose rates that reflect worst-case exposure scenarios. There were no significant effects from glyphosate observed in brood survival, development, and mean pupal weight. Additionally, there were no biologically significant levels of adult mortality observed in any glyphosate treatment group. Significant effects were observed only in the fenoxycarb toxic reference group and included increased brood mortality and a decline in the numbers of bees and brood. Mean glyphosate residues in larvae were comparable at 4 days after spray application in the exposure study and also following dosing at a level calculated from the mean measured levels in pollen and nectar, showing the applicability and robustness of the approach for dose setting with honeybee brood studies. This study has developed a versatile and predictive approach for use in higher tier honeybee toxicity studies. It can be used to realistically quantify exposure of colonies to pesticides to allow the appropriate dose rates to be determined, based on realistic worst-case residues in pollen and nectar and estimated intake by the colony, as shown by the residue analysis. Previous studies have used the standard methodology developed primarily to identify pesticides with insect-growth disrupting properties of pesticide formulations, which are less reliant on identifying realistic exposure scenarios. However, this adaptation of the method can be used to determine dose-response effects of colony level exposure to pesticides with a wide range of properties. This approach would limit the number of replicated tunnel or field-scale studies that need to be undertaken to assess effects on honeybee brood and may be of particular benefit where residues in pollen and nectar are crop- and/or formulation-specific, such as systemic seed treatments and granular applications.

Assessing the exposure risk and impacts of pharmaceuticals in the environment on individuals and ecosystems.

The use of human and veterinary pharmaceuticals is increasing. Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of research into potential environmental impacts of pharmaceuticals in the environment. A Royal Society-supported seminar brought together experts from diverse scientific fields to discuss the risks posed by pharmaceuticals to wildlife. Recent analytical advances have revealed that pharmaceuticals are entering habitats via water, sewage, manure and animal carcases, and dispersing through food chains. Pharmaceuticals are designed to alter physiology at low doses and so can be particularly potent contaminants. The near extinction of Asian vultures following exposure to diclofenac is the key example where exposure to a pharmaceutical caused a population-level impact on non-target wildlife. However, more subtle changes to behaviour and physiology are rarely studied and poorly understood. Grand challenges for the future include developing more realistic exposure assessments for wildlife, assessing the impacts of mixtures of pharmaceuticals in combination with other environmental stressors and estimating the risks from pharmaceutical manufacturing and usage in developing countries. We concluded that an integration of diverse approaches is required to predict 'unexpected' risks; specifically, ecologically relevant, often long-term and non-lethal, consequences of pharmaceuticals in the environment for wildlife and ecosystems.

Comment on "A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees".

Henry et al. (Reports, 20 April, p. 348) used a model to predict that colony collapse in honey bees could be precipitated by pesticide-induced intoxication that disrupts navigation. Here, we show that collapse disappears when the model is recalculated with parameter values appropriate to the season when most pesticide-treated flowering crops bloom.

Risk assessment for honey bees and pesticides--recent developments and 'new issues'.

In 2008, major areas of discussion at the ICPBR Bee Protection Group meeting were the development of a honey bee risk assessment scheme for systemic pesticides and revision of the test guidelines for semi-field and field studies. The risk assessment scheme for systemic pesticides is based on analysis of conditions for exposure of bees to residues. These are based on a stepwise approach, starting with simple calculations based on existing data in dossiers and progressing to higher-tier semi-field and field studies (the guidelines for these have been modified in line with this). The proposed scheme has been tested with data packages of high- and low-risk PPPs. A future area of interest for the group may be the risks posed by guttation fluid containing systemic pesticides. A recent paper on 'Translocation of neonicotinoid insecticides from coated seeds to seedling guttation drops: a novel way of intoxication for bees' has focused significant interest on the possible risks posed by the presence of residues of systemic pesticides in guttation fluid to water-collecting honey bees. The occurrence of guttation and the presence of pesticide residues in the fluid are discussed, together with remaining questions that will need to be addressed in answering whether such a route of exposure may pose a risk to honey bees.

Modelling long-term effects of IGRs on honey bee colonies.

Systems have been developed to monitor the direct effects of insect growth regulator (IGR) pesticide exposure on honey bee development, but there has been little work on the longer-term impact of exposure on the colony. A honey bee population model provided the opportunity to investigate the effects of short-term mortality of brood and of sublethal changes in behaviour of the surviving adults on honey bee populations. The model showed that brood mortality alone has limited effect on colony size. There were two mechanisms that could have greater influence on productivity. Precocious foraging in affected adult bees, and hence early loss of brood-rearing (nurse) capabilities, had a much larger effect than expected. Increasing mortality rates by 30% to simulate sublethal effects on lifespan, rather than reduced brood-rearing capability, gave a significantly smaller effect. In order to simulate an effect with the 'shortened lifespan' mechanism as large as that with the 'premature ageing' mechanism, the mortality rate of affected adults had to be increased by 500%. A significant finding from the model is that application of IGRs in spring and early summer could have substantial effects on colony size and viability. Sublethal effects such as precocious foraging can have worse effects than massive brood mortality, as it severely reduces the ability to rear the next generation of nurse bees.

The relevance of sublethal effects in honey bee testing for pesticide risk assessment.

The option of an evaluation and assessment of possible sublethal effects of pesticides on bees has been a subject of discussion by scientists and regulatory authorities. Effects considered included learning behaviour and orientation capacity. This discussion was enhanced by the French bee issue and allegations against systemic insecticides that were linked to the hypothesis that sublethal intoxication might even have led to reported colony losses. This paper considers whether and, if so, how sublethal effects should be incorporated into risk assessment, by addressing a number of questions: What is meant by a sublethal effect? Which sublethal effects should be measured, when and how? How are sublethal effects to be included in risk assessments? The authors conclude that sublethal studies may be helpful as an optional test to address particular, compound-specific concerns, as a lower-tier alternative to semi-field or field testing, if the effects are shown to be ecologically relevant. However, available higher-tier data (semi-field, field tests) should make any additional sublethal testing unnecessary, and higher-tier data should always override data of lower-tier trials on sublethal effects.

Possible chemical causes of skeletal deformities in grey heron nestlings (Ardea cinerea) in North Nottinghamshire, UK.

Dead and deformed grey heron (Ardea cinerea) chicks were reported at a large heronry in North Nottinghamshire, UK between 1996 (when systematic visits to the heronry started) and 2002. Many of the birds died for no obvious reason but deformities in others included multiple fractures of the tarsus and tibia and metacarpal bones (angel wings). This study aimed to investigate possible chemical causes of these deformities. Analysis of eggs and nestling tissue for a range of metals showed no levels of concern and no significant differences between unaffected and deformed birds. However, the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) detected in affected heron nestlings in 2002 and in eggs taken from nests in 2003 were sufficiently high to suggest that this may be the underlying cause of the deformities, possibly due to effects on deposition of calcium in bone. Further work is underway to identify where the parent birds of the affected nestlings are feeding and identify the possible source of the pollution.

The effects of four insect growth-regulating (IGR) insecticides on honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) colony development, queen rearing and drone sperm production.

This study assessed the effects of exposure to IGRs on the long-term development of the honeybee colony, viability of queens and sperm production in drones and integrated the data into a honeybee population model. Colonies treated with diflubenzuron resulted in a short-term reduction in the numbers of adult bees and brood. Colonies treated with fenoxycarb declined during the season earlier and started the season slower. The number of queens that successfully mated and laid eggs was affected in the fenoxycarb treatment group but there were no significant differences in the drone sperm counts between the colonies. An existing honeybee population model was modified to include exposure to IGRs. In the model, fenoxycarb reduced the winter size of the colony, with the greatest effects following a June or an August application. Assuming a 'larvae per nurse bee' ratio of 1.5 for brood rearing capability, the reduction in winter size of a colony following a fenoxycarb application was at its worst about 8%. However, even if only those bees reared within 2 weeks of the IGR being applied are subject to premature ageing, this might significantly reduce the size of over-wintering colonies, and increase the chance of the bee population dwindling and dying in late winter or early spring.