Workshop on Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-<i>Apis</i>Bees: Foundation and Summaries

Boyle, Natalie K.; Pitts‐Singer, Theresa L.; Abbott, John; Alix, Anne; Cox-Foster, Diana; Hinarejos, Silvia; Lehmann, David M.; Morandin, Lora A.; O’Neill, Bridget; Raine, Nigel E.; Singh, Rajwinder; Thompson, Helen; Williams, Neal M.; Steeger, Thomas

doi:10.1093/ee/nvy103

Cited by 64 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the sensitivity of A. mellifera to a wide range of xenobiotics, the judgement that acute exposure estimates used in A. mellifera risk assessments are likely protective of non‐ Apis bee exposure, and that reliable non‐ Apis test systems might take years to develop, we propose to invest the available resources into the development of an A. mellifera toxicity data‐based risk assessment. We suggest that the next steps would be to conduct a relative sensitivity analysis for chronic and developmental endpoints as soon as such data are available, and complement this with in silico (simulation) approaches to understand the potential impact at the population level into more field‐realistic scenarios.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methods are lacking altogether for bumble bee larvae and for chronic exposure in adult and larval solitary bees . In contrast to the European Union (EU), the USA still follows the established, honeybee‐centred testing approach which they consider adequately protective for non‐honeybee species . In Brazil, which broadly follows the US risk assessment approach, there is interest in the use of non‐ Apis toxicity data for off‐crop risk assessment, but no standardised methodologies are currently available…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In regulatory risk assessments, exposure by contact is assumed to occur through direct overspray of bees foraging in highly bee‐attractive crops, and oral exposure is based on the consumption of a mass of nectar 8.53 times body weight in the EFSA acute risk assessment and 2.92 times body weight in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment. These exposure scenarios are likely to also be protective of adults of other non‐ Apis species exposed through these routes …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,20,21 In contrast to the European Union (EU), the USA still follows the established, honeybee-centred testing approach which they consider adequately protective for non-honeybee species. 22,23 In Brazil, which broadly follows the US risk assessment approach, there is interest in the use of non-Apis toxicity data for off-crop risk assessment, but no standardised methodologies are currently available. 24 Use of a surrogate species is a widely accepted approach in many areas of regulatory risk assessment, as it is neither possible nor ethically acceptable (particularly in the case of vertebrates) to test all species possibly exposed to chemicals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These exposure scenarios are likely to also be protective of adults of other non-Apis species exposed through these routes. 23,43 We aimed to test the suitability (conservativeness) of A. mellifera as a surrogate species for tier 1 acute exposure regulatory risk assessments based on the available toxicity data and regulatory exposure scenarios. We used all the available acute toxicity data (acute contact and oral exposure) we considered reliable based on available details of the methodology (single dose study and dose reported per bee) and conducted a comparative risk (A. mellifera versus non-Apis species) assessment following the three primary approaches used for regulatory risk assessment globally: EFSA, EPA and European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Thompson

Pamminger²

2019

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

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: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Thompson

Pamminger²

2019

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Impacts of Neonicotinoids on the Bumble Bees Bombus terrestris and Bombus impatiens Examined through the Lens of an Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework

Camp

Lehmann

2021

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Workshop on Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-ApisBees: Foundation and Summaries

Cited by 64 publications

References 46 publications

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

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

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

Impacts of Neonicotinoids on the Bumble Bees Bombus terrestris and Bombus impatiens Examined through the Lens of an Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About