No abstract

The ongoing debate about glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and their implications for beneficial arthropods gives rise to controversy. This research was carried out to cover possible sublethal GBH effects on the brood and colony development, adult survival, and overwintering success of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) under field conditions. Residues in bee relevant matrices, such as nectar, pollen, and plants, were additionally measured. To address these questions, we adopted four independent study approaches. For brood effects and survival, we orally exposed mini-hives housed in the “Kieler mating-nuc” system to sublethal concentrations of 4.8 mg glyphosate/kg (T1, low) and 137.6 mg glyphosate/kg (T2, high) over a period of one brood cycle (21 days). Brood development and colony conditions were assessed after a modified OECD method (No. 75). For adult survival, we weighed and labeled freshly emerged workers from control and exposed colonies and introduced them into non-contaminated mini-hives to monitor their life span for 25 consecutive days. The results from these experiments showed a trivial effect of GBH on colony conditions and the survival of individual workers, even though the hatching weight was reduced in T2. The brood termination rate (BTR) in the T2 treatment, however, was more than doubled (49.84%) when compared to the control (22.11%) or T1 (20.69%). This was surprising as T2 colonies gained similar weight and similar numbers of bees per colony compared to the control, indicating an equal performance. Obviously, the brood development in T2 was not “terminated” as expected by the OECD method terminology, but rather “slowed down” for an unknown period of time. In light of these findings, we suggest that chronic high GBH exposure is capable of significantly delaying worker brood development, while no further detrimental effects seem to appear at the colony level. Against this background, we discuss additional results and possible consequences of GBH for honey bee health.

The ongoing debate about glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and their implications for beneficial arthropods give rise to controversy. This research was carried out to cover possible sublethal GBH effects on brood and colony development, adult survival, and overwintering success of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) under field conditions. Residues in bee relevant matrices such as nectar, pollen and plants were measured in addition. To address these questions, we adopted four independent study approaches. For brood effects and survival, we orally exposed mini-hives housed in the "Kieler mating-nuc" system to sublethal concentrations of 4.8 mg glyphosate/kg (T1, low) and 137.6 mg glyphosate/kg (T2, high) over the period of one brood cycle (21 days). Brood development and colony conditions were assessed after a modified OECD method (No. 75). For adult survival, we weighed and labeled freshly emerged workers from exposed colonies and introduced them into non-contaminated mini-hives to monitor life span for 25 consecutive days. Results from these experiments showed a trivial effect of GBH on colony conditions and survival of individual workers, even though hatching weight was reduced in T2. The brood termination rate (BTR) in the T2 treatment, however, was more than doubled (49.84%) when compared to the control (22.11%) or T1 (20.69%). This was surprising as T2 colonies gained similar weight and similar numbers of bees per colony compared to the control, indicating equal performance. Obviously, the brood development in T2 was not "terminated" as expected by the OECD method terminology but rather "slowed down" for an unknown period of time. In light of these findings, we suggest that chronic high GBH exposure is capable of delaying worker brood development to a significant extent while no further detrimental effects seem to appear at the colony level. Against this background, we discuss additional results and possible consequences of GBH for honey bee health.

Varroa mites are highly attracted to drone brood of honey bees (Apis mellifera), as it increases their chance of successful reproduction. Therefore, drone brood removal with trap frames is common practice among beekeepers in Europe and part of sustainable varroa control. However, it is considered labour‐intensive, and there are doubts about the effectiveness of this measure. At present, it is mostly unknown how many mites a drone frame can carry at different times of the season, and how many mites can be removed on average if this measure is performed frequently. Therefore, we sampled a total of 262 drone frames with varying proportion of capped cells (5–100%) from 18 different apiaries. Mites were washed out from brood collected from mid‐April to mid‐July based on a standard method to obtain comparable results. We found that a drone frame carried a median of 71.5 mites, and with the removal of four trap frames, about 286 mites can be removed per colony and season. In addition, mite counts were significantly higher in June and July than in April and May (Tukey‐HSD, P < 0.05). The number of mites and the proportion of capped cells, however, were not correlated (R2 < 0.01, P < 0.05). Our results suggest that drone brood removal is effective in reducing Varroa destructor numbers in colonies, supporting the findings of previous studies on the efficacy of this measure. Although mite counts varied, we believe that increasing sample size over different seasons and locations could elucidate infestation patterns in drone brood and ultimately improve drone brood removal as an integrated pest management tool for a wider audience of beekeepers.

12With the currently updated risk assessment of three neonicotinoid pesticides, the 13 European Food Safety Authority has confirmed that different applications of these 14 substances represent a risk to wild and managed bees and their use was therefore 15 severely restricted. However, to close further gaps in knowledge, this experiment covers 16 exposure of honey bee worker brood reared in a neonicotinoid contaminated in-hive 17 environment with focus on the individual. In a worst case scenario, mini-hives were fed 18 chronically with a sublethal concentration of clothianidin (15 µg/kg), which is highly 19 toxic to bees already in small amounts. Freshly hatched workers from these colonies 20 were subsequently marked and introduced into non-contaminated colonies, where their 21 lifespan and behavior was monitored. Nineteen days after exposure, clothianidin treated 22 bees had no reduced lifespan or showed any signs of behavioral impairment when 23 compared to the control, demonstrating that social buffering is not a simple substitution 24 of dead bees by rearing more brood. Our results suggest that the social environment 25 plays a crucial role for the individual in terms of "superorganism resilience". These 26 findings are discussed in context with the current use of lower tier test systems in risk 27 assessment and contrary results obtained from laboratory experiments. 28 29 2 HIGHLIGHTS 30  Sublethal clothianidin treatment did not affect lifespan nor behavior of workers. 31  Effects on individual bees reared within a mini-hive are translatable to full-sized 32 colonies. 33  "Superorganism resilience" is not a simple substitution of dead bees by rearing 34 more brood. 35