Search

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides globally. It acts by inhibiting an enzyme in an aromatic amino acid synthesis pathway specific to plants and microbes, leading to the view that it poses no risk to other organisms. However, there is growing concern that glyphosate is associated with health effects in humans and an ever-increasing body of evidence that suggests potential deleterious effects on other animals including pollinating insects such as bees. Although pesticides have long been considered a factor in the decline of wild bee populations, most research on bees has focussed on demonstrating and understanding the effects of insecticides. To assess whether glyphosate poses a risk to bees, we characterised changes in survival, behaviour, sucrose solution consumption, the digestive tract proteome, and the microbiota in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris after chronic exposure to field relevant doses of technical grade glyphosate or the glyphosate-based formulation, RoundUp Optima+®. Regardless of source, there were changes in response to glyphosate exposure in important cellular and physiological processes in the digestive tract of B. terrestris, with proteins associated with oxidative stress regulation, metabolism, cellular adhesion, the extracellular matrix, and various signalling pathways altered. Interestingly, proteins associated with endocytosis, oxidative phosphorylation, the TCA cycle, and carbohydrate, lipid, and amino acid metabolism were differentially altered depending on whether the exposure source was glyphosate alone or RoundUp Optima+®. In addition, there were alterations to the digestive tract microbiota of bees depending on the glyphosate source No impacts on survival, behaviour, or food consumption were observed. Our research provides insights into the potential mode of action and consequences of glyphosate exposure at the molecular, cellular and organismal level in bumblebees and highlights issues with the current honeybee-centric risk assessment of pesticides and their formulations, where the impact of co-formulants on non-target organisms are generally overlooked., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Besides the benefits of plant protection products (PPPs) for agricultural production, there is an increasing acknowledgement of the associated potential environmental risks. Here, we examine the feasibility of summarizing the extent of PPP usage at the country level, using Ireland as a case study, as well as at the European level. We used the area over which PPPs are applied (basic area) as an example variable that is relevant to initially assess the geographic extent of environmental risk. In Irish agricultural systems, which are primarily grass-based, herbicides fluroxypyr and glyphosate are the most widely applied active substances (ASs) in terms of basic area, followed by the fungicides chlorothalonil and prothioconazole that are closely associated with arable crops. Although all EU countries are subject to Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009, which sets the obligation of PPP usage data reporting at the national level, we only found usable data that met our criteria for Estonia, Germany, Finland, and Spain (4 of 30 countries reviewed). Overall, the most widely applied fungicide and herbicide in terms of basic area were prothioconazole (20%, 7% and 5% of national cultivated areas of Germany, Estonia and Ireland) and glyphosate (11%, 8% and 5% of national cultivated areas of Spain, Estonia and Ireland) respectively, although evaluations using application frequency may result in the observation of different trends. Several recommendations are proposed to tackle current data gaps and deficiencies in accessibility and usability of pesticide usage data across the EU in order to better inform environmental risk assessment and promote evidence-based policymaking., Competing Interests: James Quirke is an employee of the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine., (©2022 López-Ballesteros et al.)

Bees and the pollination services they deliver are beneficial to both food crop production, and for reproduction of many wild plant species. Bee decline has stimulated widespread interest in assessing hazards and risks to bees from the environment in which they live. While there is increasing knowledge on how the use of broad-spectrum insecticides in agricultural systems may impact bees, little is known about effects of other pesticides (or plant protection products; PPPs) such as herbicides and fungicides, which are used more widely than insecticides at a global scale. We adopted a systematic approach to review existing research on the potential impacts of fungicides and herbicides on bees, with the aim of identifying research approaches and determining knowledge gaps. While acknowledging that herbicide use can affect forage availability for bees, this review focussed on the potential impacts these compounds could have directly on bees themselves. We found that most studies have been carried out in Europe and the USA, and investigated effects on honeybees. Furthermore, certain effects, such as those on mortality, are well represented in the literature in comparison to others, such as sub-lethal effects. More studies have been carried out in the lab than in the field, and the impacts of oral exposure to herbicides and fungicides have been investigated more frequently than contact exposure. We suggest a number of areas for further research to improve the knowledge base on potential effects. This will allow better assessment of risks to bees from herbicides and fungicides, which is important to inform future management decisions around the sustainable use of PPPs., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.