Field and laboratory tests of the effects of fipronil on adult female bees ofApis mellifera, Megachile rotundataandNomia melanderi

Mayer, D. F.; Lunden, J. D.

doi:10.1080/00218839.1999.11101009

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the repellency of pyrethroids is known to limit the exposition of honey bees to this group of toxic pesticides (Thompson, 2003;Ojeda, 2012) this was not evident in the present experience for none of the pesticides used or their mixture. These results agree with Naumann et al (1994) and Mayer & Lunden (1999) who stated that in most cases, the effective repellency shown have been tested under semi-field conditions. Environmental stimuli such as flower attractiveness towards pollinators that might surpass the adverse effects of pesticides have not been taken into account.…”

Section: Foraging Behaviour Of a Mellifera Throughout The Daysupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do agrochemicals used during soybean flowering affect the visits of Apis mellifera L.?

Fagúndez¹,

Blettler²,

Krumrick

et al. 2016

Span. j. agric. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Pampa region of Argentina, most beehives are situated near to soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] crop and honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) use its floral resources. Soybean is often sprayed with pesticides but very little is known about their repellent action against bees. This study evaluates the visit of honey bees to crop after the application of agrochemicals aiming to check for repellency of them and estimate the possible impact on crop pollination. For this, six treatments were used (glyphosate + cypermethrin; glyphosate; cypermethrin; lambda-cyhalothrin; methoxyfenocide; Bacillus thuringiensis) and developed on plots of 625 m2, located in Oro Verde (Argentina), applying two sprays during the crop flowering. The bees were captured using entomological net every 4 days in three different times from the day after the first spraying and up the end of crop flowering. The results showed very little or no repellent action of pesticides on A. mellifera, noting that it foraged on soybean flowers regardless of the temporal proximity and the type of product used in sprays. Possible causes are discussed and the need for larger studies is evident in field conditions related to pesticides repellency and mixtures. Also, further evaluation of the effects of the different chemical formulations available on the market and used regionally where the subspecies A. mellifera can be found. Simultaneously some management practices that could help minimize the risk of contamination are mentioned; the use of defensive crop products of biological origin is encouraged as well as further research in this topic.

show abstract

Section: Foraging Behaviour Of a Mellifera Throughout The Daysupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Although there are some research works where repellency has been tested, most of them have been carried out under semi-field experimental conditions and, therefore, repellency has not been assessed in the field (Naumann et al, 1994;Mayer & Lunden, 1999).…”

Section: Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do agrochemicals used during soybean flowering affect the visits of Apis mellifera L.?

Fagúndez¹,

Blettler²,

Krumrick

et al. 2016

Span. j. agric. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coumaphos has a strong affinity for bees wax (Kochansky, Wilzer, & Feldlaufer, 2001) and, although there is only a low risk that sub-lethal concentrations have a deleterious effect on bee learning (Weick & Thorn, 2002), its use in the USA is subject to strict conditions (Hood, 2006) to mitigate the danger of coumaphos contamination of honey and wax. Fipronil is extremely toxic to bees (Mayer & Lunden, 1999) and certainly more so than coumaphos which is reported to pose only a slight danger to bees (Weick & Thorn, 2002). However, the results of our residue trial demonstrated that even when APITHOR™ was used continuously for six months, no fipronil or metabolite residues were detected in honey or bees wax extracted from treated hives and no deleterious effects on bee health were observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…The use of a harborage containing fipronil inside hives has not been without controversy. Apis mellifera is extremely sensitive to fipronil (Mayer & Lunden, 1999), fipronil residues have been implicated as a cause of bee colony losses in France (Chauzat et al, 2006) and sublethal doses of fipronil were reported to cause reduced foraging (Colin et al, 2004) and poor olfactory learning behavior in honey bees (Decourtye et al, 2005;El Hassani, Dacher, Gauthier, & Armengaud, 2005). However, the harborage design and prescribed use pattern have both been carefully considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A six-month-long assessment of the health of bee colonies treated with APITHOR ^™ hive beetle insecticide

Levot

Somerville

Annand

et al. 2015

Journal of Apicultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The safety of APITHOR™ hive beetle insecticide on the health of honey bee colonies was assessed in a field trial in which 16 bee colonies that were exposed to two consecutive treatments each of three-months duration, were compared with 10 untreated (control) hives. Measurements of brood area, available hive frames occupied by bees (hive strength) and hive weight (as an indirect indicator of honey production) were recorded pre-treatment and after three-and six-months exposure to APITHOR™ treatment. Samples of honey and wax collected from six of the treated hives at the same times were independently tested for the presence of fipronil and its metabolites, and no residues were detected in any sample at either time. Mean net increases in the weights of the APITHOR™ treated and control hives were not significantly different (p > .05). Similarly, neither mean brood area nor the mean proportion of available hive frames occupied by bees in the control and APITHOR™ treated hives was significantly different from each other (p > .05) at both the three-and six-month post-treatment assessments. Compared to the control hives, however, significantly (p < .001) fewer live beetles were recorded in the APITHOR™ treated hives at these times.Seguimiento de la salud de colonias de abeja de la miel tratadas con APITHOR TM , insecticida contra el escarabajo de las colmenas Se evaluó la seguridad del insecticida APITHOR TM para el escarabajo de las colmenas en la salud de las colonias de abeja de la miel en un experimento de campo en el que se comparó la exposició n de 16 colonias de abejas a dos tratamientos consecutivos de tres meses de duració n cada uno, con diez colmenas sin tratar (control). Se tomaron medidas sobre el área de cría, la disponibilidad de celdillas ocupadas por abejas en la colmena (fuerza de la colmena) y el peso de la colmena (como un indicador indirecto de la producció n de miel) antes del tratamiento y después de tres y seis meses de exposició n al tratamiento de APITHOR TM . Al mismo tiempo que se recogieron las muestras de miel y cera de seis de las colmenas tratadas, se evaluó independientemente la presencia de fipronil y sus metabolitos, y no se detectó ningún residuo en las muestras. La media del incremento neto del peso de las colmenas tratadas con APITHOR TM y las colmenas control no mostró diferencias significativas (P>0.05). De igual forma, ni la media de área de cría ni la media de la proporció n de celdillas en la colmena disponibles ocupadas por abejas fueron significativamente diferentes entre las abejas control y las tratadas con APITHOR TM en las evaluaciones a los 3 y a los 6 meses posttratamiento. Sin embargo, comparadas con las colmenas control, las colmenas tratadas con APITHOR TM registraron menos escarabajos vivos significativamente (P<0.001) en estos tiempos.

show abstract

“…In field conditions, the repellency of pyrethroids may be lower than suggested by semi‐field experiments 8. In field studies, Mayer and Lunden15 did not find any repellency to bees for alpha‐cypermethrin applied at the field rate to flowering oilseed rape. Shires et al 16 found that, when sprayed on oilseed rape during periods of peak honey bee foraging activity, alpha‐cypermethrin caused a slight decline in the level of foraging and in the levels of collected pollen 8.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of alpha‐cypermethrin on honey bees foraging on spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus) flowers in field conditions

Karise

Viik

Mänd

2007

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Field and laboratory tests of the effects of fipronil on adult female bees ofApis mellifera, Megachile rotundataandNomia melanderi

Cited by 32 publications

References 12 publications

Do agrochemicals used during soybean flowering affect the visits of Apis mellifera L.?

Do agrochemicals used during soybean flowering affect the visits of Apis mellifera L.?

A six-month-long assessment of the health of bee colonies treated with APITHOR ^™ hive beetle insecticide

Impact of alpha‐cypermethrin on honey bees foraging on spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus) flowers in field conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Field and laboratory tests of the effects of fipronil on adult female bees ofApis mellifera, Megachile rotundataandNomia melanderi

Cited by 32 publications

References 12 publications

Do agrochemicals used during soybean flowering affect the visits of Apis mellifera L.?

Do agrochemicals used during soybean flowering affect the visits of Apis mellifera L.?

A six-month-long assessment of the health of bee colonies treated with APITHOR ™ hive beetle insecticide

Impact of alpha‐cypermethrin on honey bees foraging on spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus) flowers in field conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A six-month-long assessment of the health of bee colonies treated with APITHOR ^™ hive beetle insecticide