Foraging Allocation in the Honey Bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae), Tuned by the Presence of the Spinosad-Based Pesticide GF-120

Abstract

Agroecosystem management commonly involves the use of pesticides. As a result, a heterogeneous landscape is created, in which suitable and unsuitable spaces are defined by the absence/presence of pesticides. In this study, we explored how foragers of the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., adapt to such context. We specifically evaluated the effect of GF-120, a spinosad-based fruit fly toxic bait, on the allocation of foragers between food sources under the hypothesis that foragers will move from food sources with GF-120 to food sources without it. We thus carried out three experiments: in experiment 1, a group of foragers was trained to collect honey solution from a feeder; next, this feeder offered a GF-120/honey solution. A minority of foragers continued collecting the GF-120/honey solution. In experiment 2, we trained two groups of foragers from a colony to two food sources equally rewarding. Next, GF-120 was added to one of the food sources. We found that the majority of foragers moved from the GF-120-treated feeder to the feeder without GF-120 and that the minority that continued visiting the GF-120-treated feeder did not collect the GF-120/honey solution. In a third experiment, we wanted to know if foragers in an experimental setup as in experiment 1 would perform waggle dances: none of the foragers that collected GF-120/honey were observed dancing. Our results emphasize the importance of "food refuges" for non-target species, since they minimize the impact of agrochemicals upon them.

Acttra SWD Bait Formulation Against Drosophila Suzukii and its Compatibility with Berry Pollination by the Honey Bee, Apis Mellifera

“…Many foragers that abandoned the Acttra/Entrust feeder during the exposure phase showed up at the sucrose feeder, which suggests that, as long as there are food alternatives available, some bees will prefer to move to these resources. A similar result was obtained by Cabrera- Marín et al (2015) with honey bees exposed to GF-120, when foragers abandoned the feeder that changed from offering sucrose to show the pesticide. Thus, some spaces must be left in the field untreated, for example through the application of the formulation at evenly spaced Effect of Acttra SWD on honey bees locations and that the application does not cause too much aerosolization in order to reach floral structures.…”

“…However, it was hypothesized that the entire blend, or some compounds, in Acttra SWD attracts honey bees, so even though contact through spraying is considerably reduced, residual contact and potential ingestion by honey bees cannot be discarded. Thus here we report the results of evaluating the attraction of Acttra SWD mixed with spinosad to honey bee foragers following Cabrera-Marín et al (2015) procedures. We aimed to determine whether honey bee foragers are able to reject Acttra + spinosad treated food sources when alternative Acttra + spinosad-free resources are available, as a strategy to make agriculture and pollination more compatible.…”

Biopesticides and insect pollinators: Detrimental effects, outdated guidelines, and future directions

“…The colony integrity of social pollinators may, indeed, be jeopardized by those subltle detrimental effects undermining the cognitive abilities involved in collective behavior such as communication, recognition, and optimal foraging. Exposure to biopesticides has been demonstrated to affect these traits (Morandin et al, 2005;Mommaerts et al, 2009;Barbosa et al, 2015a;Cabrera-Marín et al, 2015;Bernardes et al, 2017;Cappa et al, 2019;Padilha et al, 2019;Carlesso et al, 2020;Almeida et al, 2022;Fig. 3; Tables S1-S6) but further research on how these products can interfere with the complex network of interactions among colony members is needed to understand to what extent subtle adverse effects on the exposed individuals can turn into a disruption of the social organization.…”

“…Recent studies have also highlighted that Bt can alter the gut microbiome of honey bees(Steinigeweg et al, 2022) while another bacterial biopesticide, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, reduces the expression of genes linked to immunity in adult bees(Sabo et al, 2020).The bioinsecticide spinosad proved to be highly toxic for honey bees(Peng et al, 2000;Bailey et al, 2005;Miles et al, 2012;Abdel Rasoul et al, 2013;Xavier et al, 2015;Cabrera-Marín et al, 2016;Challa et al, 2019) (Fig.2; TableS3). In addition, spinosad affects foraging behavior(Cabrera-Marín et al, 2015) and induces transcriptional alterations of metabolic genes in the brain of adult bees at sublethal concentrations(Christen et al, 2019). In fact, exposed workers showed a significant down-regulation of genes encoding enzymes linked to oxidative phosphorylation and metabolism(Christen et al, 2019).…”

Toxicity and Risk of Biopesticides to Insect Pollinators in Urban and Agricultural Landscapes

“…For example, spinosad, a bacterial-based biopesticide derived from Saccharopolyspora spinosa [Pseudonocardiales: Psuedonocardiceae], is extremely toxic to honey bees through oral ingestion and contact at recommended spray levels in laboratory settings [30,148,149]. At sublethal concentrations, spinosad induces behavioral changes in foragers such as reluctance to collect contaminated food, reluctance to convey contaminated food source locations [150], and reduced walking distance [151]; genetic changes including lower expression of enzymes associated with metabolism and detoxification [152]; and structural changes such as less columnar epithelium and regenerative cells in the midgut of honey bees [151]. This indicates that implementing spinosad when honey bees are prolific (such as flowering season for any particular plant) could be detrimental to them [126].…”