Wild Bee Toxicity Data for Pesticide Risk Assessments

Lewis, Kathleen; Tzilivakis, John

doi:10.3390/data4030098

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In combination with the extensive experience and resulting robust test methodology makes A. mellifera solid choice as screening level test species. In contrast the relative sensitivity data indicates that the two recently developed model species Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis for the European risk assessment process are comparatively resilient to a range of insecticides, which in turn means that including them in the screening step will likely not make the risk assessment more protective for bees from a sensitivity perspective [12,13,66,67].…”

Section: Risk Assessment Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…There have been two approaches to improve overall sensitivity characterization for non Apis bees: 1. Develop new model test species (e g. Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis) for lower tier screening or 2) better characterize the relative sensitivity of A. mellifera in relation to other bees and develop and appropriately conservative risk assessment based on the honeybee [11][12][13].…”

Section: Risk Assessment Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…mellifera and Bombus terrestris) little is known about the response of the majority of bees to insecticides to date. As A. mellifera is currently used as the main surrogate species for non-Apis bees risk assessment around the globe, this lack of comparative sensitivity data generates uncertainty regarding the protectiveness of this approach [11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Extrapolating acute bee sensitivity to insecticides using a phylogenetically informed interspecies scaling framework

Pamminger

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant protection products, including insecticides, are important for global food production. Historically, research of the adverse effects of insecticides on bees has focused on the honeybee (Apis mellifera), while non-Apis bee species remained understudied. Consequently, sensitivity assessment of insecticides for the majority of bees is lacking, which in turn hinders accurate risk characterization and consequently bee protection. Interspecies sensitivity extrapolation based on body weight offers a potential solution to this problem, but in the past such approaches have often ignored the phylogenetic background and consequently non independence of species used in such models. Using published data on the sensitivity of different bee species to commonly used insecticides, their body weight and phylogenetic background I build interspecies scaling models (ISMs) applying a phylogenetically informed framework. In addition, I compared, the relative sensitivity of the standard test species Apis mellifera to other bee species to evaluate their protectiveness when used as standards screening bee species in the risk assessment process. I found that overall 1) body weight is a predictor of bee sensitivity to insecticides for a range of insecticide classes and 2) A. mellifera is the most sensitive standard test species currently available and consequently a suitable surrogate species for ecotoxicological risk assessment.

show abstract

Section: Risk Assessment Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Risk Assessment Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extrapolating acute bee sensitivity to insecticides using a phylogenetically informed interspecies scaling framework

Pamminger

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… a) Data from Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB), available at: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB (Accessed: 19 December 2017) and Pesticide Properties DataBase (PPDB), available at: https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/index.htm (Accessed: 23 January 2018) and EC report …”

Section: Characteristics Of the Pesticides From The Eu First And Secomentioning

confidence: 99%

Pesticides from the EU First and Second Watch Lists in the Water Environment

Pietrzak

Kania

Malina

et al. 2019

CLEAN Soil Air Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contamination of water with pesticides used in agriculture and urban areas is a priority issue that is currently of global concern. In 2015, the European Union (EU) published the first Watch List (1st WL), which showed the necessity for Union‐wide monitoring of ten organic substances/groups of substances in the field of water policy. The list includes, among other items, eight pesticides: five neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam), and methiocarb, oxadiazon, and tri‐allate. In 2018 the EU published the second Watch List, which repealed the 1st WL. In this list, among other changes, one pesticide (metaflumizone) was added, and two (oxadiazon and tri‐allate) were removed. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge on the reported occurrence and concentrations of these pesticides in surface and groundwaters and in effluents from wastewater treatment plants derived from 73 studies in 21 countries worldwide. Imidacloprid, acetamiprid and thiamethoxam were the most frequently found pesticides due to their widespread use, while metaflumizone, methiocarb, oxadiazon, and tri‐allate are less studied pesticides whose occurrence in water is also poorly reported. More investigation is needed to assess the occurrence and impact of these pesticides on the aquatic environment worldwide in the context of water supply and human security.

show abstract

“…Apis mellifera L.), is used as a surrogate species to assess the risk of plant protection products to bees. There remains discussion about whether this approach is protective of non‐ Apis bees (Heard et al 2017; Lewis and Tzilivakis 2019; Thompson and Pamminger 2019). Non‐ Apis bees comprise a wide range of body sizes as well as biological and life history traits, which may result in differences in sensitivity and exposure routes in comparison with honey bees (Biddinger et al 2013; Arena and Sgolastra 2014; Thompson 2015; Uhl et al 2016; Gradish et al 2018; Sgolastra et al 2018; Bireley et al 2019; Boyle et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results of 2‐Year Ring Testing of a Semifield Study Design to Investigate Potential Impacts of Plant Protection Products on the Solitary Bees Osmia Bicornis and Osmia Cornuta and a Proposal for a Suitable Test Design

Franke

Elston

Jütte

et al. 2020

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are various differences in size, behavior, and life history traits of non-Apis bee species compared with honey bees (Apis mellifera; Linnaeus, 1758). Currently, the risk assessment for bees in the international and national process of authorizing plant protection products has been based on honey bee data as a surrogate organism for non-Apis bees. To evaluate the feasibility of a semifield tunnel test for Osmia bicornis (Linnaeus, 1758) and Osmia cornuta (Latreille, 1805), a protocol was developed by the non-Apis working group of the International Commission for Plant-Pollinator Relationships, consisting of experts from authorities, academia, and industry. A total of 25 studies were performed over a 2-yr period testing a replicated control against a replicated positive control using either a dimethoate or diflubenzuron treatment. Studies were regarded to be valid, if ≥30% of released females were found to occupy the nesting units in the night/morning before the application (establishment). Thirteen studies were regarded to be valid and were analyzed further. Parameters analyzed were nest occupation, flight activity, cell production (total and per female), cocoon production (total and per female), emergence success, sex ratio, and mean weight of females and males. Dimethoate was a reliable positive control at the tested rate of 75 g a.i./ha, once >30% females had established, displaying acute effects such as reduction in flight activity, increase in adult mortality (shown by nest occupation), and reproduction ability of the females (total cell and cocoon production). On the other hand, no effects on larval and pupal development were observed. The growth regulator diflubenzuron had statistically significant effects on brood development, causing mortality of eggs and larvae at a rate of approximately 200 g a.i./ha, whereas fenoxycarb did not cause any significant effects at the tested rates of 300 and 600 g a.i./ha. In conclusion, the ring-test protocol proved to be adequate once the study comprised a well-established population of female Osmia bees, and the results improved in the second year as the laboratories increased their experience with the test organism. It is noted that the success of This article includes online-only Supplemental Data. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Wild Bee Toxicity Data for Pesticide Risk Assessments

Cited by 23 publications

References 22 publications

Extrapolating acute bee sensitivity to insecticides using a phylogenetically informed interspecies scaling framework

Extrapolating acute bee sensitivity to insecticides using a phylogenetically informed interspecies scaling framework

Pesticides from the EU First and Second Watch Lists in the Water Environment

Results of 2‐Year Ring Testing of a Semifield Study Design to Investigate Potential Impacts of Plant Protection Products on the Solitary Bees Osmia Bicornis and Osmia Cornuta and a Proposal for a Suitable Test Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About