From field to food—will pesticide-contaminated pollen diet lead to a contamination of royal jelly?

Böhme, Franziska; Bischoff, Gabriela; Zebitz, C. P. W.; Rosenkranz, Peter; Wallner, Klaus

doi:10.1007/s13592-017-0533-3

Cited by 58 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Virtually no pesticide residues were found in royal jelly, even when colonies were fed with high (75-800 g L −1 active ingredient) pesticide concentrations. Only 0.016% of the consumed thiacloprid reaches the secreted royal jelly [88]. This is consistent with distributions of other insecticides within workers.…”

Section: Neonicotinoids Affect Larval and Adult Developmentsupporting

confidence: 82%

Acetylcholine and Its Receptors in Honeybees: Involvement in Development and Impairments by Neonicotinoids

Grünewald

Siefert

2019

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acetylcholine (ACh) is the major excitatory neurotransmitter in the insect central nervous system (CNS). However, besides the neuronal expression of ACh receptors (AChR), the existence of non-neuronal AChR in honeybees is plausible. The cholinergic system is a popular target of insecticides because the pharmacology of insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) differs substantially from their vertebrate counterparts. Neonicotinoids are agonists of the nAChR and are largely used in crop protection. In contrast to their relatively high safety for humans and livestock, neonicotinoids pose a threat to pollinating insects such as bees. In addition to its effects on behavior, it becomes increasingly evident that neonicotinoids affect developmental processes in bees that appear to be independent of neuronal AChRs. Brood food (royal jelly, worker jelly, or drone jelly) produced in the hypopharyngeal glands of nurse bees contains millimolar concentrations of ACh, which is required for proper larval development. Neonicotinoids reduce the secreted ACh-content in brood food, reduce hypopharyngeal gland size, and lead to developmental impairments within the colony. We assume that potential hazards of neonicotinoids on pollinating bees occur neuronally causing behavioral impairments on adult individuals, and non-neuronally causing developmental disturbances as well as destroying gland functioning.

show abstract

Section: Neonicotinoids Affect Larval and Adult Developmentsupporting

confidence: 82%

Acetylcholine and Its Receptors in Honeybees: Involvement in Development and Impairments by Neonicotinoids

Grünewald

Siefert

2019

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individual larvae are then followed through to emergence. This direct feeding approach is over‐conservative for honeybees, as larval exposure in the colony is food processed by adults into brood food prior to feeding young larvae, thus potentially reducing the pesticide load . The honeybee larval exposure scenario is more comparable with situations in which larvae are exposed directly to contaminated pollen and nectar or, for some species, directly exposed to treated leaves, e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Thompson

Pamminger²

2019

Pest Management Science

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

“…During early larval development, each worker larva receives approximately 30 mg worker jelly . The percent pesticide transfer from contaminated pollen to royal jelly has been demonstrated experimentally to be 0.001–0.016%, corresponding to a total dose of 1.4 × 10 −5 ng THI in 30 mg worker jelly, assuming pollen is contaminated with 28.9 μg kg –1 THI . Later in larval development, each worker larva is fed approximately 180 mg nectar and 5.4 mg pollen, corresponding to a total dose of 0.588 ng THI, assuming nectar contains 2.4 μg kg –1 THI and pollen contains 28.9 μg kg –1 THI …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of chronic dietary thiamethoxam and prothioconazole exposure onApis melliferaworker adults and brood

Wood

Mattos

Kozii

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Chronic exposure of honey bees (Apis mellifera Linnaeus) to the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam and the fungicide prothioconazole is common during foraging in agricultural landscapes. We evaluated the survival and hypopharyngeal gland development of adult worker honey bees, and the survival of the worker brood when chronically exposed to thiamethoxam or thiamethoxam and prothioconazole in combination. RESULTS We found that 30 days of exposure to 40 μg kg–1 of thiamethoxam significantly (P < 0.001) increased the frequency of death in worker adults by four times relative to solvent control. The worker brood required 23 times higher doses of thiamethoxam (1 mg L–1 or 909 μg kg–1) before a significant (P = 0.04), 3.9 times increase in frequency of death was observed relative to solvent control. No additive effects of simultaneous exposure of worker adults or brood to thiamethoxam and prothioconazole were observed. At day 8 and day 12, the hypopharyngeal gland acinar diameter was not significantly different (P > 0.05) between controls and adult workers exposed to thiamethoxam and/or prothioconazole. CONCLUSION These results indicate that chronic exposure to field‐realistic doses of thiamethoxam and/or prothioconazole are unlikely to affect the survival of adult workers and brood. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

From field to food—will pesticide-contaminated pollen diet lead to a contamination of royal jelly?

Cited by 58 publications

References 52 publications

Acetylcholine and Its Receptors in Honeybees: Involvement in Development and Impairments by Neonicotinoids

Acetylcholine and Its Receptors in Honeybees: Involvement in Development and Impairments by Neonicotinoids

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

Effects of chronic dietary thiamethoxam and prothioconazole exposure onApis melliferaworker adults and brood

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About