Evaluating and Explaining the Variability of Honey Bee Field Studies across Europe Using BEEHAVE

Abstract

To assess the effect of plant protection products on pollinator colonies, the higher tier of environmental risk assessment (ERA), for managed honey bee colonies and other pollinators, is in need of a mechanistic effect model. Such models are seen as a promising solution to the shortcomings, which empirical risk assessment can only overcome to a certain degree. A recent assessment of 40 models conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) revealed that BEEHAVE is currently the only publicly available mechanistic honey bee model that has the potential to be accepted for ERA purposes. A concern in the use of this model is a lack of model validation against empirical data, spanning field studies conducted in different regions of Europe and covering the variability in colony and environmental conditions. We filled this gap with a BEEHAVE validation study against 66 control colonies of field studies conducted across Germany, Hungary, and the United Kingdom. Our study implements realistic initial colony size and landscape structure to consider foraging options. Overall, the temporal pattern of colony strength is predicted well. Some discrepancies between experimental data and prediction outcomes are explained by assumptions made for model parameterization. Complementary to the recent EFSA study using BEEHAVE, our validation covers a large variability in colony conditions and environmental impacts representing the Northern and Central European Regulatory Zones. Thus we believe that BEEHAVE can be used to serve the development of specific protection goals as well as the development of simulation scenarios for the European Regulatory Zone. Subsequently, the model can be applied as a standard tool for higher tier ERA of managed honey bees using the mechanistic ecotoxicological module for BEEHAVE, BEEHAVEecotox. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:1839–1850. © 2023 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Methods for assessing bee foraging preferences: a short review and a new automated apparatus

“…Traditional sampling methods, such as manual counting, have proven time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to human error (Agatz et al, 2023;Prendergast et al, 2020). Prendergast et al (2020) recently reviewed sampling techniques used for native bees, and Odemer (2021) reviewed automated bee counting systems.…”

“…Environmental conditions, hive/colony health, and nutritional needs can also affect bee preferences. However, due to their size, extensive ranges, and environmental factors, it can be challenging to study bee preferences for different food sources in wild and domesticated populations(Agatz et al, 2023; Campbell et al, 2019; Liira & Jürjendal, 2023; Mayack et al, 2023; Wagner, 2019).…”

“…Accurately counting bee visits and obtaining reliable quantitative data associated with their preferences has posed a challenge to researchers(Prendergast et al, 2020). Traditional sampling methods, such as manual counting, have proven time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to human error(Agatz et al, 2023; Prendergast et al, 2020). Prendergast et al (2020) recently reviewed sampling techniques used for native bees, and Odemer (2021) reviewed automated bee counting systems.…”