Gavin Lewis

Initial recommendations for higher‐tier risk assessment protocols for bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Global declines of bumble bees and other pollinator populations are of concern because of their critical role for crop production and maintenance of wild plant biodiversity. Although the consensus among scientists is that the interaction of many factors, including habitat loss, forage scarcity, diseases, parasites, and pesticides, potentially plays a role in causing these declines, pesticides have received considerable attention and scrutiny. In response, regulatory agencies have introduced more stringent pollinator testing requirements for registration and reregistration of pesticides, to ensure that the risks to pollinators are minimized. In this context, guidelines for testing bumble bees (Bombus spp.) in regulatory studies are not yet available, and a pressing need exists to develop suitable protocols for routine higher-tier studies with these non-Apis sp., social bees. To meet this need, Bayer CropScience LP, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC US, and Valent USA. Corporation organized a workshop bringing together a group of global experts on bumble bee behavior, ecology, and ecotoxicology to discuss and develop draft protocols for both semi-field (Tier II) and field (Tier III) studies. The workshop was held May 8-9, 2014, at the Bayer Bee Care Center, North Carolina, USA. The participants represented academic, consulting, and industry scientists from Europe, Canada, the United States, and Brazil. The workshop identified a clear protection goal and generated proposals for basic experimental designs, relevant measurements, and endpoints for both semifield (tunnel) and field tests. These initial recommendations are intended to form the basis of discussions to help advance the development of appropriate protocol guidelines.

Semi-field and field testing on the honey bee working group

Findings of high concentrations of bee-toxic compounds in guttation drops from crop plants treated with a neonicotinoid seed dressing gave rise to concerns about a potential risk to honeybee colonies. As bee colonies seem to prefer water sources in the near surroundings, several field trials were set up, aimed to investigate if setting minimal distances of bee colonies to a frequently guttating seed-treated field could be a method to minimize the potential risk of water collecting bees ingesting contaminated guttation drops. The experiments were conducted in 2011 and 2012 on conventional managed maize, wheat and oilseed rape fields near Braunschweig (Lower Saxony, Germany). Every experimental field consisted of two plots; one planted with a neonicotinoid treated seed batch and one adjacent plot with an untreated seed batch. The bee hives were placed in the untreated plot before or immediately after emergence with a 0 m to maximal 85 m distance to the adjacent treated plot. The entrance of every hive pointed toward the treated plot. At each distance a minimum of three bee colonies containing approximately 11.000 20.000 bees were set up. During the whole experiment climatic conditions, growth stage of the crop plants and presence of guttation, rain and dew drops were recorded. If guttation occurred, droplets were sampled. Furthermore, colony development (Liebefelder method) and mortality (Gary-dead bee traps) were assessed. After completion of the field experiment residue analyses of guttation drops and dead bees were conducted. Guttation occurred frequently during the experimental phase. Residues in guttation droplets were detected during the entire experiment from BBCH 10 up to a maximum of BBCH 59, depending on the investigated crop. However in most cases the number of dead bees per colony was at a normal level, regardless of the tested crop and the distance between the bee colony and the treated field. The only exception was a slightly increased number of dead bees in tests with oilseed rape which was occasionally observed at 0 m distance to the treated crop. Furthermore, in some dead bees residues of the seed treatment were detected but without link between mortality and residues. However, no long term effects on bee brood and honey bee colony strength and development were observed independently from the distance and tested crop. Taking into account the results of all experiments there were no indications of an unacceptable risk for bee colonies from contaminated guttation drops in our trials. However, results of individual samples from the dead traps suggest that individual honeybees occasionally use guttation droplets as water source. Therefore, to maintain a certain distance between beehives and insecticide-treated fields of 60 m could be a potentially useful measure to further reduce the potential risk although the applicability and practicability of such a mitigation measure may be questioned. In many cases, it is neither for beekeepers nor growers possible to move the apiary or the field. It is possible that such a mitigation measure could further complicate the discussions between beekeepers and farmers in real life.Dust drift during sowing of maize seeds treated with neonicotinoids has led to several severe honey bee poisoning incidents in the past. Studies have been conducted to assess the abrasion potential of treated seeds, the influence of different sowing machines, and effects on honey bees in semi-field and field conditions. In the JKI a number of field and semi-field trials with sowing of treated seeds assessing effects on honey bees and also with manual application of small amounts of dusts were conducted. Several trials were conducted with sowing of winter oil seed rape (4 trials) and maize (3 trials) and an adjacent flowering crop, either winter oil seed rape or mustard both downwind and upwind of the sown area. Sowing was conducted when wind direction was at the achievable optimum. Residue samples from petri dishes for 2-D and gauze collectors for 3– D drift of dust drift were taken as well as samples from the adjacent flowering crop. Honey bee colonies were placed both upwind and downwind of the sowing area and served as treated variant and respective control. As sowing was conducted during bee flight activity, hive entrances of colonies in the semi-field experiments were closed from early morning until end of sowing. Thus a worst case scenario was obtained for exposure of bees to dusts deposited on flowers, nectar and pollen. The high number of the trials conducted between 2009 and 2014 allows a detailed insight of the correlation between Heubach a.i. values, 2-D and 3-D exposure and effects on honey bees after sowing of different crops.152 Julius-Kühn-Archiv, 450, 2015 2.16 Semi-field and field testing on the honey bee working group Frank Bakker, Heino Christl, Mike Coulson, Axel Dinter, Hervé Giffard, Nicole Hanewald, Gavin Lewis, Mark Miles, Jens Pistorius, Job van Praagh, Marit Randall, Christine Vergnet, Connie Hart, Christoph Sandrock, Thomas Steeger 1Eurofins, 2Tier 3, 3Syngenta, 4DuPont, 5Testapi, 6BASF, 7JSC, 8BCS, 9JKI, 10ICPPR, 11Norwegian FSA, 12ANSES, 13Health Canada, 14IES, 15US EPA