Pesticides and Bees
1

Johansen, Carl; Mayer, D. F.; Eves, Jack D.; Kious, C.

doi:10.1093/ee/12.5.1513

Cited by 73 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The linear decline of bees suggests a dose response, meaning the risk to bees increased directly as their exposure increased. Similarly, high and repeated exposure is the most likely explanation for why fungicides, with low honeybee toxicity [58,60], had a measurable impact on wild bees. Fungicides are used to prevent the spread of fungal pathogens during rain events and were most heavily employed in early spring when precipitation is most common.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild bee communities provide underappreciated but critical agricultural pollination services. Given predicted global shortages in pollination services, managing agroecosystems to support thriving wild bee communities is, therefore, central to ensuring sustainable food production. Benefits of natural (including semi-natural) habitat for wild bee abundance and diversity on farms are well documented. By contrast, few studies have examined toxicity of pesticides on wild bees, let alone effects of farm-level pesticide exposure on entire bee communities. Whether beneficial natural areas could mediate effects of harmful pesticides on wild bees is also unknown. Here, we assess the effect of conventional pesticide use on the wild bee community visiting apple (Malus domestica) within a gradient of percentage natural area in the landscape. Wild bee community abundance and species richness decreased linearly with increasing pesticide use in orchards one year after application; however, pesticide effects on wild bees were buffered by increasing proportion of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape. A significant contribution of fungicides to observed pesticide effects suggests deleterious properties of a class of pesticides that was, until recently, considered benign to bees. Our results demonstrate extended benefits of natural areas for wild pollinators and highlight the importance of considering the landscape context when weighing up the costs of pest management on crop pollination services.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the application was only to the upper surface of the dead bees the surface area of a honeybee is 0.93 cm 2 (Johansen et al, 1983) this suggests that the maximum residue equated to 63% efficiency. At lower wind speeds the efficiency was approximately 38%.…”

Section: Aggregate Exposure Of Foragers Following Spray Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RUD (residue per unit dose -mg/kg in dead bees for a 1Kg/ha application) was calculated for the data in Table 1.1 This showed that the RUD for the applications ranged from mean of 4.43 to a 90 th percentile of 15.28 which is similar to the those identified in the study using tracers (2.8 mean 17.9 maximum) and suggests such a value may reflect exposure of foraging honeybees to spray applications during and immediately after application. Such an RUD may be extrapolated to other bee species based on their surface area (Johansen et al, 1983).…”

Section: Aggregate Exposure Of Foragers Following Spray Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The contact LD 50 of emamectin benzoate is 0.0027 µg/bee (2.7 ng/bee) and a surface containing 3.6 ng/cm 2 resulted in 46% mortality. Therefore, to result in the LD 50 the bee needs to come into contact with 0.75 cm 2 which is close to the 0.93 cm 2 surface area of the body (Johansen et al, 1983). Such a measure may be useful in extrapolating to other bee species with differing surface areas, e.g.…”

Section: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interaction between pesticides and other factors in effects on bees

Thompson

2012

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees are important pollinators of both managed crops and wild flora. An overview of the interactions between pesticides and other factors in effects on bees considered: 1) The importance of the different exposure routes in relation to the overall exposure of bees to pesticides; 2) Multiple exposure to pesticides (including substances used in bee medication) and potential additive and cumulative effects; and 3) Interactions between diseases and susceptibility of bees to pesticides. Nectar foraging bees are likely to experienced highest exposure to both sprayed and systemic seed and soil treatments compounds followed by nurse and brood-attending bees. In both cases the major contribution to exposure was contaminated nectar with direct overspray playing a significant role in exposure. However, there are a variety of other routes (and other bee species) where there is currently insufficient data to fully total exposure: There are a large number of studies that have investigated the interactions between pesticides in bees. By far the majority have related to the interactions involving EBI fungicides and can be related to their inhibition of P450. The scale of the synergy is shown to be dose and season-dependent in acute exposures but there are few data relating to the effect of time between exposures, the effect of route of exposure or on chronic exposure effects at realistic exposure levels. There are a wide range of factors which affect the immunocompetence of bees including diet quality, pest and diseases. Although there are a limited number of laboratory based studies which suggest effects of a pesticide on disease susceptibility there is no clear evidence from field-based studies that exposure of colonies to pesticides results in increased susceptibility to disease or that there is a link between colony loss due to disease and pesticide residues in monitoring studies. KEY WORDSHoneybees, bumble bees, pesticides, disease, mixtures, synergism DISCLAIMERThe present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author. This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author, awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author. This task has been carried out exclusively by the author in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as...

show abstract

“…However, naive solitary, female bees begin foraging shortly after emergence, and may be immediately exposed to pesticide sprays. In fact, Taséi (1977) and Johansen et al (1983) recommend using 1-to 2-day-old bees for toxicity studies with M. rotundata. The toxicity of pesticides to bees is age-dependent (Ladas, 1970;Guez et al, 2001;Taséi, 2002).…”

Section: Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a standard artificial flower design to feed individual bees known amounts of pesticides

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-We investigated the possibility of feeding individual bees known amounts of pesticides on a standard artificial flower with or without scent. We tested experienced and naive (without foraging experience) Osmia lignaria and Megachile rotundata females, and experienced Apis mellifera foragers, and trained (exposed to the artificial flower for 24 h) and untrained individuals of the three species. We also fed untrained individuals of all three species with feeding units made with natural flowers (Ladurner et al., Apidologie 34 (2003) 597-602). Feeding success on artificial flowers was lower (0-50%) for O. lignaria and M. rotundata, than A. mellifera (70-97%). Training improved feeding success in O. lignaria and A. mellifera, but not M. rotundata. Experience improved feeding success in O. lignaria, but not M. rotundata. Scent had no effect on feeding success for any of the three species. Feeding success with the natural flower method was high for the three species (87-90%).oral toxicity test / artificial flower / Osmia lignaria / Apis mellifera / Megachile rotundata

show abstract

Pesticides and Bees 1

Cited by 73 publications

References 0 publications

Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context

Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context

Interaction between pesticides and other factors in effects on bees

Evaluation of a standard artificial flower design to feed individual bees known amounts of pesticides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About