<i>Osmia bicornis</i> is rarely an adequate regulatory surrogate species. Comparing its acute sensitivity towards multiple insecticides with regulatory <i>Apis mellifera</i> endpoints

Uhl, Philipp; Awanbor, Osarobo; Schulz, Ronald; Brühl, Carsten A.

doi:10.1101/366237

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a first step in this exercise, we used the published acute contact toxicity data and, because the species tested varied widely in mass, we converted toxicity data for non‐ Apis bee species to common units [μg/ A. mellifera body weight equivalent (0.1 g)]. We used the mean of reported size ranges of non‐ Apis species to enable comparisons on a per weight basis to be conservative, i.e.…”

Section: Putting the Proposal To The Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are honeybees suitable surrogates for use in pesticide risk assessment for non‐Apis bees?

Thompson

Pamminger²

2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, bee regulatory risk assessment for pesticides has centred on the European honeybee (Apis mellifera), primarily due to its availability and adaptability to laboratory conditions. Recently, there have been efforts to develop a battery of laboratory toxicity tests for a range of non‐Apis bee species to directly assess the risk to them. However, it is not clear whether the substantial investment associated with the development and implementation of such routine screening will actually improve the level of protection of non‐Apis bees. We argue, using published acute toxicity data from a range of bee species and standard regulatory exposure scenarios, that current first‐tier honeybee acute risk assessment schemes utilised by regulatory authorities are protective of other bee species and further tests should be conducted only in cases of concern. We propose similar analysis of alternative exposure scenarios (chronic and developmental) once reliable data for non‐Apis bees are available to expand our approach to these scenarios. In addition, we propose that in silico (simulation) approaches can then be used to address population‐level effects in more field‐realistic scenarios. Such an approach could lead to a protective, but also workable, risk assessment for non‐Apis species while contributing to pollination security in agricultural landscapes around the globe. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Section: Putting the Proposal To The Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a first step in this exercise, we used the published acute contact toxicity data 26,44 and, because the species tested varied widely in mass, we converted toxicity data for non-Apis bee species to common units [μg/A. mellifera body weight equivalent (0.1 g)].…”

Section: Putting the Proposal To The Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are honeybees suitable surrogates for use in pesticide risk assessment for non‐Apis bees?

Thompson

Pamminger²

2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, recent research suggested that this may not always be a sound approach for several reasons. Firstly, Apis and non-Apis bees may vary in their susceptibility to pesticides and pesticides exposure opportunities may be different due to variations in feeding and breeding behavior, and chosen habitats [15][16][17][18][19]. There is also an issue on the metrics used for toxicity data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned previously pesticide toxicity data for honeybees has until relatively recently been used as a protective surrogate for all bee species and even now, in many instances, this is still the case albeit a safety factor is applied which reduces the honeybee LD 50 value by a factor of 10. As there is continuing debate regarding the validity of using honeybees as a protective species [17,26], it is interesting to consider the statistical correlation between the two species based on the data collated for the dataset described herein. It should, however, be mentioned that this analysis is somewhat crude due to data limitations as the pesticide toxicity values for the two species have not been paired in terms of experimental conditions and worst case LD 50 values have been used to account for 'greater than' values.…”

Section: Insights Into the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Wild Bee Toxicity Data for Pesticide Risk Assessments

Lewis

Tzilivakis

2019

Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollination services are vital for agriculture, food security and biodiversity. Although many insect species provide pollination services, honeybees are thought to be the major provider of this service to agriculture. However, the importance of wild bees in this respect should not be overlooked. Whilst regulatory risk assessment processes have, for a long time, included that for pollinators, using honeybees (Apis mellifera) as a protective surrogate, there are concerns that this approach may not be sufficiently adequate particularly because of global declines in pollinating insects. Consequently, risk assessments are now being expanded to include wild bee species such as bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and solitary bees (Osmia spp.). However, toxicity data for these species is scarce and are absent from the main pesticide reference resources. The aim of the study described here was to collate data relating to the acute toxicity of pesticides to wild bee species (both topical and dietary exposure) from published regulatory documents and peer reviewed literature, and to incorporate this into one of the main online resources for pesticide risk assessment data: The Pesticide Properties Database, thus ensuring that the data is maintained and continuously kept up to date. The outcome of this study is a dataset collated from 316 regulatory and peer reviewed articles that contains 178 records covering 120 different pesticides and their variants which includes 142 records for bumblebees and a further 115 records for other wild bee species.

show abstract

“…LD 50 or NOAEL non-Apis bee = LD 50 or NOAEL honeybee / 10). This safety factor is based various comparative species sensitivity studies and covers the known variability among bee species (Areana & Sgolastra, 2014;Uhl et al, 2018;Heard et al, 2016;Roessink et al 2010).…”

Section: In-cropmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance on dossier evaluation for the registration of pest control products in Kenya

Horst¹,

Aluoch

Barasa

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document describes guidance on dossier evaluation for the registration of pest control products in Kenya. The document provides guidance for the assessment of a limited number of aspects that are part of evaluation of a pest control product registration dossier. It should therefore not be considered as a complete pesticide evaluation manual, though it is intended to contribute to a future complete pest control product evaluation manual for Kenya. The guidance should be read together with an implementation report which contains stepping stones for further development.

show abstract

Osmia bicornis is rarely an adequate regulatory surrogate species. Comparing its acute sensitivity towards multiple insecticides with regulatory Apis mellifera endpoints

Abstract: Bee species provide essential ecosystem services and maintain floral biodiversity.

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

Are honeybees suitable surrogates for use in pesticide risk assessment for non‐Apis bees?

Are honeybees suitable surrogates for use in pesticide risk assessment for non‐Apis bees?

Wild Bee Toxicity Data for Pesticide Risk Assessments

Guidance on dossier evaluation for the registration of pest control products in Kenya

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About