Search

Over decades, pesticide regulations have cycled between approval and implementation, followed by the discovery of negative effects on nontarget organisms that result in new regulations, pesticides, and harmful effects. This relentless pattern undermines the capacity to protect the environment from pesticide hazards and frustrates end users that need pest management tools. Wild pollinating insects are in decline, and managed pollinators such as honey bees are experiencing excessive losses, which threatens sustainable food security and ecosystem function. An increasing number of studies demonstrate the negative effects of field-realistic exposure to pesticides on pollinator health and fitness, which contribute to pollinator declines. Current pesticide approval processes, although they are superior to past practices, clearly continue to fail to protect pollinator health. In the present article, we provide a conceptual framework to reform cyclical pesticide approval processes and better protect pollinators.

Novel insecticides are continuously being developed for application in response to increased legal restriction of previously developed insecticides and resistance in target insects. These novel insecticides, such as flupyradifurone (FPF), remain relatively untested on non‐target organisms, including bumblebees. Further, existing tests on honeybees tend to focus on adult mortality and thus sub‐lethal effects, such as impacts on reproductive output, are neglected, despite their importance for population‐level impacts.To address if the novel insecticide FPF has sub‐lethal effects on bumblebee reproduction and behaviour, we established microcolonies and chronically exposed them to field‐realistic concentrations over a 14‐day period.We found that exposure to FPF reduced the bumblebees' reproductive output in terms of the number of larvae produced and the mean mass of each larval instar. FPF‐treated bees also stored less sucrose and constructed fewer honeypots. However, adult bumblebee mortality was similar between control and FPF‐exposed microcolonies.Our results show that field‐realistic FPF exposure leads to increased larval mortality and/or delayed larval development, as well as reduced nectar storage, without affecting adult mortality.Policy implications. Insecticides that impair bumblebee reproduction can have long‐term population‐level consequences, even if adult bees do not experience increased mortality. Despite this fact, sub‐lethal effects, such as impacts on reproduction, are not mandatorily assessed within the regulatory process. Our findings highlight the importance of determining sub‐lethal effects of pesticides across developmental stages, as well as using pollinator species other than honeybees within the regulatory process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural intensification has been identified as one of the key causes of global insect biodiversity losses. These losses have been further linked to the widespread use of agrochemicals associated with modern agricultural practices. Many of these chemicals are known to have negative sublethal effects on commercial pollinators, such as managed honeybees and bumblebees, but less is known about the impacts on wild bees. Laboratory‐based studies with commercial pollinators have consistently shown that pesticide exposure can impact bee behavior, with cascading effects on foraging performance, reproductive success, and pollination services. However, these studies typically assess only one chemical, neglecting the complexity of real‐world exposure to multiple agrochemicals and other stressors. In the summer of 2020, we collected wild‐foraging workers of the common eastern bumblebee, Bombus impatiens, from five squash (Cucurbita) agricultural sites (organic and conventional farms), selected to represent a range of agrochemical, including neonicotinoid insecticide, use. For each bee, we measured two behaviors relevant to foraging success and previously shown to be impacted by pesticide exposure: sucrose responsiveness and locomotor activity. Following behavioral testing, we used liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) chemical analysis to detect and quantify the presence of 92 agrochemicals in each bumblebee. Bees collected from our sites did not vary in pesticide exposure as expected. While we found a limited occurrence of neonicotinoids, two fungicides (azoxystrobin and difenoconazole) were detected at all sites, and the pesticide synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO) was present in all 123 bees. We found that bumblebees that contained higher levels of PBO were less active, and this effect was stronger for larger bumblebee workers. While PBO is unlikely to be the direct cause of the reduction in bee activity, it could be an indicator of exposure to pyrethroids and/or other insecticides that we were unable to directly quantify, but which PBO is frequently tank‐mixed with during pesticide applications on crops. We did not find a relationship between agrochemical exposure and bumblebee sucrose responsiveness. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of a sublethal behavioral impact of agrochemical exposure on wild‐foraging bees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Foraging theory assumes that animals assess value based on objective payoffs; however, animals often evaluate rewards comparatively, forming expectations based on recent experience. This form of evaluation may be particularly relevant for nectar foragers such as bumblebees, where individuals can visit thousands of flowers daily that vary in nectar quality. While many animals, including bees, demonstrate reference-based evaluation in experimental contexts, it is unclear whether this occurs in the wild. Here, we asked how daily experience with wildflower nectar influenced wild bumblebees' reward evaluation. We measured the daily nectar concentration of bee-visited wildflowers (Penstemon spp.), before presenting foragers with conspecific flowers filled with a range of artificial nectar concentrations. We recorded bees' acceptance of artificial nectar, the probability of subsequent visits to flowers on the same plant, and residence time. While bees had a minimum threshold of nectar acceptability that was unaffected by experience, when there was higher-concentration environmental nectar, they were less likely to accept lower-quality rewards on manipulated plants. Bees also visited more flowers and stayed longer on plants with higher-concentration nectar. This study shows evidence for both absolute and reference-based evaluation in wild bees and points towards differences between bees' behavior in lab- and wild-foraging contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the need for reforms in pesticide regulatory practices to protect pollinators. It clarifies that the focus of the article is on global pesticide regulations, with a specific emphasis on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States. The authors suggest that the US should adopt the evaluation of plant protection products as formulations, similar to the European Union. They also highlight the importance of post-approval monitoring and testing the effects of pesticides on diverse pollinator species. The article calls for a broad conversation and cooperation among stakeholders to protect pollinators. [Extracted from the article]

Neonicotinoid insecticides can have sub‐lethal effects on bees which has led to calls from conservationists for a global ban. In contrast, agrochemical companies argue that neonicotinoids do not harm honeybees at field‐realistic levels. However, the focus on honeybees neglects the potential impact on other bee species. We conducted a meta‐analysis to assess whether field‐realistic neonicotinoid exposure has sub‐lethal effects on non‐Apis bees. We extracted data from 53 papers (212 effects sizes) and found that it largely consisted of two genera: bumblebees (Bombus) and mason bees (Osmia), highlighting a substantial taxonomic knowledge gap. Neonicotinoid exposure negatively affected reproductive output across all bees and impaired bumblebee colony growth and foraging. Neonicotinoids also reduced Bombus, but not Osmia, individual development (growth and body size). Our results suggest that restrictions on neonicotinoids should benefit bee populations and highlight that the current regulatory process does not safeguard pollinators from the unwanted consequences of insecticide use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic insecticides, such as neonicotinoids, are a major contributor towards beneficial insect declines. This has led to bans and restrictions on neonicotinoid use globally, most noticeably in the European Union, where four commonly used neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin and thiacloprid) are banned from outside agricultural use. While this might seem like a victory for conservation, restrictions on neonicotinoid use will only benefit insect populations if newly emerging insecticides do not have similar negative impacts on beneficial insects. Flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor are two novel insecticides that have been registered for use globally, including within the European Union. These novel insecticides differ in their chemical class, but share the same mode of action as neonicotinoids, raising the question as to whether they have similar sub-lethal impacts on beneficial insects. Here, we conducted a systematic literature search of the potential sub-lethal impacts of these novel insecticides on beneficial insects, quantifying these effects with a meta-analysis. We demonstrate that both flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor have significant sub-lethal impacts on beneficial insects at field-realistic levels of exposure. These results confirm that bans on neonicotinoid use will only protect beneficial insects if paired with significant changes to the agrochemical regulatory process. A failure to modify the regulatory process will result in a continued decline of beneficial insects and the ecosystem services on which global food production relies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning associations between food-related stimuli and nutrients allows foragers to collect resources efficiently. In turn, the nutrients that foragers consume can themselves affect learning performance, through innate preferences for pre-ingestive stimuli, as well as post-ingestive reinforcement. Bees are insect models of learning and memory, yet the vast majority of this research concerns nectar (carbohydrate) rather than pollen (protein/lipid) rewards, despite the fact that many bees collect both simultaneously. We asked how one component of pollen surface chemistry, a free fatty acid (oleic acid), affected bees' performance in a nectar-learning task. We found that ingestion of oleic acid enhanced visual learning, likely through positive post-ingestive reinforcement. This was supported by our finding that although bees did not prefer to consume the oleic acid solution, its ingestion both decreased motor activity and increased survival. These results are a step towards understanding how nutritionally complex floral rewards may affect cognitive processes that underlie pollination mutualisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bees are vital pollinators of crops and wildflowers and as such, wild bee declines threaten food security and functioning ecosystems. One driver of bee declines is the use of systemic insecticides, such as commonly used neonicotinoids. However, rising pest resistance to neonicotinoids, and restrictions on their use in the EU, has increased the demand for replacement insecticides to control crop pests. Flupyradifurone is a novel systemic insecticide that is thought to be relatively 'bee safe' although it can be present in the nectar and pollen of bee-attractive crops. Bumblebees rely on learning to forage efficiently, and thus detriments to learning performance may have downstream consequences on their ability to forage. While neonicotinoids negatively influence bumblebee learning and memory, whether this is also the case for their replacements is unclear. Here, we exposed bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) to an acute, field-realistic dose of flupyradifurone before training them to learn either an olfactory or colour association. We found that flupyradifurone impaired bumblebees' learning and memory performance in both olfactory and visual modalities. Flupyradifurone-treated bees were also less motivated to feed. Given the similarity between the detriments to cognition found here and those previously reported for neonicotinoids, this implies that these insecticides may have similar sub-lethal effects on bees. Restrictions on neonicotinoid use are therefore unlikely to benefit bees if novel insecticides like flupyradifurone are used as an alternative, highlighting that current agrochemical risk assessments are not protecting bees from the unwanted consequences of pesticide use. Sub-lethal assessments on non- Apis bees should be made mandatory in agrochemical regulation to ensure that novel insecticides are indeed 'bee safe'. [Display omitted] • Flupyradifurone is a novel insecticide that could replace neonicotinoids. • Flupyradifurone impaired bumblebee olfactory and colour learning. • Bumblebees exposed to flupyradifurone were also less motivated to feed. • Policy makers should incorporate sub-lethal effects on bumblebees into risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intensive agriculture is reliant on pesticides to control crop pests, but these chemicals can have negative environmental consequences. This has resulted in repeated calls for pesticide risk assessments to be modified to better protect ecosystem services such as pollination. However, the pesticide licensing process is complex, and consequently there is often confusion between risk assessments where the environmental impact of pesticide use is considered, and risk management where licensing decisions are made. Using bees as a case study, we provide a roadmap for how pesticides are licensed for use in the European Union. By outlining the regulatory process, we highlight key data gaps that need to be addressed to generate a holistic approach to environmental risk assessment. Such an approach is vital to protect pollinators and wildlife more broadly from the unintended consequences of pesticide use. Siviter et al. outline the regulatory process by which pesticides are licenced in the European Union, and highlight gaps that need to be addressed to generate a holistic approach to environmental risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]