Mechanistic modeling of pesticide exposure: The missing keystone of honey bee toxicology

Sponsler, Douglas B.; Johnson, Reed M.

doi:10.1002/etc.3661

Cited by 71 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparing residues of thiamethoxam in pollen and nectar from treated crops to those used within the feeding study, we propose an approach of considering the worst-case exposure profile in terms of total exposure to residues of the different castes of honey bees within the hive (Sponsler and Johnson 2017) in relation to the proportion of pollen and nectar consumed (US Environmental Protection Agency 2014). This approach has the same basis as other areas of toxicology and ecotoxicology because, the source of the residues being disregarded, it is the total exposure concentration that is relevant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thiamethoxam honey bee colony feeding study: Linking effects at the level of the individual to those at the colony level

Overmyer

Feken

Ruddle

et al. 2017

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neonicotinoid insecticides have been used globally on a wide range of crops through seed treatment as well as soil and foliar applications and have been increasingly studied in relation to the potential risk to bees because of their detection in pollen and nectar of bee-attractive crops. The present article reports the results of laboratory studies (10-d adult and 22-d larval toxicity studies assessing the chronic toxicity of thiamethoxam to adult honey bees and larvae, respectively) and a colony feeding study, with 6 wk of exposure in an area with limited alternative forage, to provide a prewintering colony-level endpoint. The endpoints following exposure of individuals in the laboratory (10-d adult chronic no-observed-effect concentration [NOEC] for mortality 117 μg thiamethoxam/kg sucrose solution, 141 μg thiamethoxam/L sucrose solution; 22-d larval chronic NOEC 102 μg thiamethoxam/kg diet) are compared with those generated at the colony level, which incorporates sublethal effects (no-observed-adverse-effect concentration [NOAEC] 50 μg thiamethoxam/L sucrose solution, 43 μg thiamethoxam/kg sucrose solution). The data for sucrose-fed honey bee colonies support the lack of effects identified in previous colony-level field studies with thiamethoxam. However, unlike these field studies demonstrating no effects, colony feeding study data also provide a threshold level of exposure likely to result in adverse effects on the colony in the absence of alternative forage, and a basis by which to evaluate the potential risk of thiamethoxam residues detected in pollen, nectar, or water following treatment of bee-attractive crops. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:816-828. © 2017 SETAC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thiamethoxam honey bee colony feeding study: Linking effects at the level of the individual to those at the colony level

Overmyer

Feken

Ruddle

et al. 2017

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Toxicity exposure models often assume a uniform exposure to pesticides. With respect to the complex environment in which honey bees forage and the social interactions within a honey bee colony, Sponsler and Johnson [49] point to a more sophisticated modelling of differential exposure and susceptibility of different members of a honey bee colony. The uneven distribution of food in cages reflects a different exposure, although it might not be comparable to the situation in a honey bee colony.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Better food distribution can be expected during chronic conditions compared to acute feedings, especially when higher numbers of bees are used [9]. Another option for improving the food distribution might be to expose honey bees to a pesticide up to ten days as discussed by Decourtye & Devillers [41] or to feed honey bees individually [11, 21, 49]. Our results suggest further research is needed on the reliability of laboratory experiments toward ensuring a more uniform distribution of food among caged honey bees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food consumption and food exchange of caged honey bees using a radioactive labelled sugar solution

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured the distribution of sugar solution within groups of caged honey bees (Apis mellifera) under standard in vitro laboratory conditions using 14C polyethylene glycol as a radioactive marker to analyze ingestion by individual bees after group feeding. We studied the impact of different experimental setups by varying the number of bees, age of bees, origin of bees, duration of experiment, the amount of available diet, and the influence of the neurotoxic pesticide imidacloprid in the diet on the feeding and food sharing behavior (trophallaxis). Sugar solution was non-uniformly distributed in bees in 36 out of 135 cages. As a measure of the extent to which the sugar diet was equally distributed between caged bees, we calculated the (inner 80%) intake ratio by dividing the intake of the 90th percentile bee by the intake of the 10th percentile bee. This intake ratio ranged from 1.3 to 94.8 in 133 individual cages, further supporting a non-uniform distribution of food among caged bees. We can expect a cage with 10 or 30 bees containing one bee that ingests, on average, the 8.8-fold of the bee in the same cage ingesting the smallest quantity of food. Inner 80% intake ratios were lower in experiments with a permanent or chronic offering of labelled sugar solution compared to temporary or acute feedings. After pooling the data of replicates to achieve a higher statistical power we compared different experimental setups. We found that uniform food distribution is best approached with 10 newly emerged bees per cage, which originate from a brood comb from a single colony. We also investigated the trophallaxis between caged honey bees which originally consumed the diet and newly added bees. Color marked bees were starved and added to the cages in a ratio of 10:5 or 20:20 after the initial set of bees consumed all the labelled sugar solution. The distribution of the labelled sugar solution by trophallaxis within 48 hours to added bees was 25% (10:5) or 45% (20:20) of the initial sugar solution. Imidacloprid at its median lethal dose (LD50) in the sugar solution reduced this post-feeding food transmission to 27% (20:20). Our results show that differences in food intake exist within caged bees that may lead to differential exposure that can influence the interpretation of toxicity tests.

show abstract

“…Also, potential impacts from residues of pesticides in nectar and pollen or other routes of exposure to honey bee colonies may be confounded by additional environmental factors. Honey bee colony models can provide tools for colony‐level risk assessments in addition to field studies (Becher et al ; Sponsler and Johnson ; Kuan et al ). The mechanistic honey bee colony model BEEHAVE (Becher et al ) combines processes in the colony, including brood development, nursing, and mite infestations, with foraging for nectar and pollen in the landscape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honey bee colony‐level exposure and effects in realistic landscapes: An application of BEEHAVE simulating clothianidin residues in corn pollen

Schmolke

Abi‐Akar

Hinarejos³

2019

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discerning potential effects of insecticides on honey bee colonies in field studies conducted under realistic conditions can be challenging because of concurrent interactions with other environmental conditions. Honey bee colony models can control exposures and other environmental factors, as well as assess links among pollen and nectar residues in the landscape, their influx into the colony, and the resulting exposures and effects on bees at different developmental stages. We extended the colony model BEEHAVE to represent exposure to the insecticide clothianidin via residues in pollen from treated cornfields set in real agricultural landscapes in the US Midwest. We assessed their potential risks to honey bee colonies over a 1‐yr cycle. Clothianidin effects on colony strength were only observed if unrealistically high residue levels in the pollen were simulated. The landscape composition significantly impacted the collection of pollen (residue exposure) from the cornfields, resulting in higher colony‐level effects in landscapes with lower proportions of semi‐natural land. The application of the extended BEEHAVE model with a pollen exposure‐effects module provides a case study for the application of a mechanistic honey bee colony model in pesticide risk assessment integrating the impact of a range of landscape compositions. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:423–435. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

show abstract

Mechanistic modeling of pesticide exposure: The missing keystone of honey bee toxicology

Cited by 71 publications

References 87 publications

Thiamethoxam honey bee colony feeding study: Linking effects at the level of the individual to those at the colony level

Thiamethoxam honey bee colony feeding study: Linking effects at the level of the individual to those at the colony level

Food consumption and food exchange of caged honey bees using a radioactive labelled sugar solution

Honey bee colony‐level exposure and effects in realistic landscapes: An application of BEEHAVE simulating clothianidin residues in corn pollen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About