Literature DB >> 27847190

Comparative toxicity of pesticides and environmental contaminants in bees: Are honey bees a useful proxy for wild bee species?

Matthew S Heard1, Jan Baas2, Jean-Lou Dorne3, Elma Lahive2, Alexander G Robinson2, Agnes Rortais3, David J Spurgeon2, Claus Svendsen2, Helen Hesketh2.   

Abstract

Threats to wild and managed insect pollinators in Europe are cause for both ecological and socio-economic concern. Multiple anthropogenic pressures may be exacerbating pollinator declines. One key pressure is exposure to chemicals including pesticides and other contaminants. Historically the honey bee (Apis mellifera spp.) has been used as an 'indicator' species for 'standard' ecotoxicological testing but it has been suggested that it is not always a good proxy for other types of eusocial and solitary bees because of species differences in autecology and sensitivity to various stressors. We developed a common toxicity test system to conduct acute and chronic exposures of up to 240h of similar doses of seven chemicals, targeting different metabolic pathways, on three bee species (Apis mellifera spp., Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis). We compared the relative sensitivity between species in terms of potency between the chemicals and the influence of exposure time on toxicity. While there were significant interspecific differences that varied through time, overall the magnitude of these differences (in terms of treatment effect ratios) was generally comparable (<2 fold) although there were some large divergences from this pattern. Our results suggest that A. mellifera spp. could be used as a proxy for other bee species provided a reasonable assessment factor is used to cover interspecific variation. Perhaps more importantly our results show significant and large time dependency of toxicity across all three tested species that greatly exceeds species differences (>25 fold within test). These are rarely considered in standard regulatory testing but may have severe environmental consequences, especially when coupled with the likelihood of differential species exposures in the wild. These insights indicate that further work is required to understand how differences in toxicokinetics vary between species and mixtures of chemicals.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apis; Bombus; DEBtox; Neonicotinoid; Osmia; Trace metal

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27847190     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.180

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  16 in total

1.  Comparison of Pesticide Exposure in Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Implications for Risk Assessments.

Authors:  Angela E Gradish; Jozef van der Steen; Cynthia D Scott-Dupree; Ana R Cabrera; G Christopher Cutler; Dave Goulson; Olaf Klein; David M Lehmann; Johannes Lückmann; Bridget O'Neill; Nigel E Raine; Bibek Sharma; Helen Thompson
Journal:  Environ Entomol       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 2.377

2.  Impact of Diflubenzuron on Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Microcolony Development.

Authors:  A A Camp; M A Batres; W C Williams; D M Lehmann
Journal:  Environ Entomol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.377

3.  The direct and indirect effects of environmental toxicants on the health of bumblebees and their microbiomes.

Authors:  Jason A Rothman; Kaleigh A Russell; Laura Leger; Quinn S McFrederick; Peter Graystock
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  QSAR modeling in ecotoxicological risk assessment: application to the prediction of acute contact toxicity of pesticides on bees (Apis mellifera L.).

Authors:  Mabrouk Hamadache; Othmane Benkortbi; Salah Hanini; Abdeltif Amrane
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 5.  Bombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Microcolonies as a Tool for Biological Understanding and Pesticide Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Ellen G Klinger; Allison A Camp; James P Strange; Diana Cox-Foster; David M Lehmann
Journal:  Environ Entomol       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 2.387

6.  Comparing bee species responses to chemical mixtures: Common response patterns?

Authors:  Alex Robinson; Helen Hesketh; Elma Lahive; Alice A Horton; Claus Svendsen; Agnes Rortais; Jean Lou Dorne; Jan Baas; Matthew S Heard; David J Spurgeon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Three years of banning neonicotinoid insecticides based on sub-lethal effects: can we expect to see effects on bees?

Authors:  Tjeerd Blacquière; Jozef Jm van der Steen
Journal:  Pest Manag Sci       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 4.845

8.  General and species-specific impacts of a neonicotinoid insecticide on the ovary development and feeding of wild bumblebee queens.

Authors:  Gemma L Baron; Nigel E Raine; Mark J F Brown
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Larval exposure to field-realistic concentrations of clothianidin has no effect on development rate, over-winter survival or adult metabolic rate in a solitary bee, Osmia bicornis.

Authors:  Elizabeth Nicholls; Robert Fowler; Jeremy E Niven; James D Gilbert; Dave Goulson
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL) of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States.

Authors:  Michael DiBartolomeis; Susan Kegley; Pierre Mineau; Rosemarie Radford; Kendra Klein
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.