No abstract

Intensive agriculture currently relies on pesticides to maximize crop yield. Neonicotinoids are the most widely used insecticides globally, but increasing evidence of negative impacts on important pollinators and other non-target organisms has led to legislative reassessment and created demand for the development of alternative products. Sulfoximine-based insecticides are the most likely successor, and are either licensed for use or under consideration for licensing in several worldwide markets, including within the European Union, where certain neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam) are now banned from agricultural use outside of permanent greenhouse structures. There is an urgent need to pre-emptively evaluate the potential sub-lethal effects of sulfoximine-based pesticides on pollinators, because such effects are rarely detected by standard ecotoxicological assessments, but can have major impacts at larger ecological scales. Here we show that chronic exposure to the sulfoximine-based insecticide sulfoxaflor, at dosages consistent with potential post-spray field exposure, has severe sub-lethal effects on bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) colonies. Field-based colonies that were exposed to sulfoxaflor during the early growth phase produced significantly fewer workers than unexposed controls, and ultimately produced fewer reproductive offspring. Differences between the life-history trajectories of treated and control colonies first became apparent when individuals exposed as larvae began to emerge, suggesting that direct or indirect effects on a small cohort may have cumulative long-term consequences for colony fitness. Our results caution against the use of sulfoximines as a direct replacement for neonicotinoids. To avoid continuing cycles of novel pesticide release and removal, with concomitant impacts on the environment, a broad evidence base needs to be assessed prior to the development of policy and regulation.

Most insecticides are insect neurotoxins. Evidence is emerging that sublethal doses of these neurotoxins are affecting the learning and memory of both wild and managed bee colonies, exacerbating the negative effects of pesticide exposure and reducing individual foraging efficiency.Variation in methodologies and interpretation of results across studies has precluded the quantitative evaluation of these impacts that is needed to make recommendations for policy change. It is not clear whether robust effects occur under acute exposure regimes (often argued to be more field‐realistic than the chronic regimes upon which many studies are based), for field‐realistic dosages, and for pesticides other than neonicotinoids.Here we use meta‐analysis to examine the impact of pesticides on bee performance in proboscis extension‐based learning assays, the paradigm most commonly used to assess learning and memory in bees. We draw together 104 (learning) and 167 (memory) estimated effect sizes across a diverse range of studies.We detected significant negative effects of pesticides on learning and memory (i) at field realistic dosages, (ii) under both chronic and acute application, and (iii) for both neonicotinoid and non‐neonicotinoid pesticides groups.We also expose key gaps in the literature that include a critical lack of studies on non‐Apis bees, on larval exposure (potentially one of the major exposure routes), and on performance in alternative learning paradigms. Policy implications. Procedures for the registration of new pesticides within EU member states now typically require assessment of risks to pollinators if potential target crops are attractive to bees. However, our results provide robust quantitative evidence for subtle, sublethal effects, the consequences of which are unlikely to be detected within small‐scale prelicensing laboratory or field trials, but can be critical when pesticides are used at a landscape scale. Our findings highlight the need for long‐term postlicensing environmental safety monitoring as a requirement within licensing policy for plant protection products.

Systemic insecticides, such as neonicotinoids, are a major contributor towards beneficial insect declines. This has led to bans and restrictions on neonicotinoid use globally, most noticeably in the European Union, where four commonly used neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin and thiacloprid) are banned from outside agricultural use. While this might seem like a victory for conservation, restrictions on neonicotinoid use will only benefit insect populations if newly emerging insecticides do not have similar negative impacts on beneficial insects. Flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor are two novel insecticides that have been registered for use globally, including within the European Union. These novel insecticides differ in their chemical class, but share the same mode of action as neonicotinoids, raising the question as to whether they have similar sub-lethal impacts on beneficial insects. Here, we conducted a systematic literature search of the potential sub-lethal impacts of these novel insecticides on beneficial insects, quantifying these effects with a meta-analysis. We demonstrate that both flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor have significant sub-lethal impacts on beneficial insects at field-realistic levels of exposure. These results confirm that bans on neonicotinoid use will only protect beneficial insects if paired with significant changes to the agrochemical regulatory process. A failure to modify the regulatory process will result in a continued decline of beneficial insects and the ecosystem services on which global food production relies.