No abstract

SummaryInteractions between pesticides and parasites are believed to be responsible for increased mortality of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in the northern hemisphere. Previous efforts have employed experimental approaches using small groups under laboratory conditions to investigate influence of these stressors on honey bee physiology and behaviour, although both the colony level and field conditions play a key role for eusocial honey bees. Here, we challenged honey bee workers under in vivo colony conditions with sublethal doses of the neonicotinoid thiacloprid, the miticide tau-fluvalinate and the endoparasite Nosema ceranae, to investigate potential effects on longevity and behaviour using observation hives. In contrast to previous laboratory studies, our results do not suggest interactions among stressors, but rather lone effects of pesticides and the parasite on mortality and behaviour, respectively. These effects appear to be weak due to different outcomes at the two study sites, thereby suggesting that the role of thiacloprid, tau-fluvalinate and N. ceranae and interactions among them may have been overemphasized. In the future, investigations into the effects of honey bee stressors should prioritize the use of colonies maintained under a variety of environmental conditions in order to obtain more biologically relevant data.

Neonicotinoids alone or in combination with pathogens are considered to be involved in the worldwide weakening of honey bees. We here present a new approach for testing sublethal and/or synergistic effects in free flying colonies. In our experiment individually marked honey bees were kept in free flying mini-hives and chronically exposed to sublethal doses of the neonicotinoid clothianidin. Additional groups of bees were challenged with Nosema infections or with combinations of the pesticide and pathogens. Longevity and flight activity of the differentially treated bees were monitored for a period of 18 days. In contrast to previous laboratory studies, no effect of the neonicotinoid treatment on mortality or flight activity could be observed. Although the lifespan of Nosema infected bees were significantly reduced compared to non-infected bees a combination of pesticide and pathogen did not reveal any synergistic effect. Our results indicate that individual bees are less impaired by neonicotinoids if kept within the social environment of the colony. The effect of such a "social buffering" should be considered in future risk assessments.

No abstract

Currently, more than 360 spray adjuvants are registered in Germany (September 2021). Unlike plant protection products (PPPs), adjuvants are not subjected to regulatory risk assessment. In practice, numerous combinations of PPPs and adjuvants are therefore possible. Thus, tank mixtures containing insecticides that are classified as non-hazardous to bees up to the highest approved application rate or concentration may raise pollinator safety concerns when mixed with efficacy increasing adjuvants and applied in bee-attractive crops. This study analyzes whether selected “PPP–adjuvant” combinations result in increased contact mortality and pose an elevated risk to honey bees. To answer this question, we chose six common spray adjuvants of different classes for laboratory screening. These were then tested in a total of 30 tank mixtures, each with a neonicotinoid (acetamiprid), pyrethroid (lambda-cyhalothrin), diamide (chlorantraniliprole), carbamate (pirimicarb), and butenolide (flupyradifurone) formulation. We adapted an acute contact test (OECD Test Guideline 214) to our needs, e.g., by using a professional spray chamber for more realistic exposures. Our results showed that, in total, 50% of all combinations significantly increased the mortality of caged honey bees in comparison with individual application of insecticides. In contrast, none of the adjuvants alone affected bee mortality (Cox proportional hazard model, p > 0.05). With four of the five insecticide formulations, the organosilicone surfactant Break-Thru® S 301 significantly increased bee mortality within 72 h (for all insecticides except chlorantraniliprole). Furthermore, acetamiprid yielded the highest and second highest mortality increases from a tank mixture with the crop oil surfactant LI 700® (hazard ratio = 28.84, p < 0.05) and the organosilicone Break-Thru® S 301 (hazard ratio = 14.66, p < 0.05), respectively. To assess risk in a more field-realistic setting, field trials should be performed to provide a more realistic exposure scenario under colony conditions.

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.

For nearly 100 years, electronic bee counters have been developed using various technologies to track the foraging activity of mostly honey bee colonies. These counters should enable remote monitoring of the hives without disturbing natural flight behavior while generating precise scientific data. Today, however, there are not many counters on the market, that are able to fulfill this task. One main challenge is the lack of standardized methods to validate a counter's precision, but validation is crucial to categorize and judge the data produced by the counter, especially for scientific purposes. Another challenge is the interpretation of flight data to measure the effects of environmental or anthropogenic sources. Nevertheless, recent developments in the field are promising. This review describes the historic development of automated bee flight measurement and critically compares validation methods to encourage their improvement. Lastly, to increase the comparability of future analyses with bee counters, current advances in data interpretation are also presented.

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.