Suchergebnisse

1. Sulfoximine‐based insecticides, such as sulfoxaflor, are of increasing global importance and have been registered for use in 81 countries, offering a potential alternative to neonicotinoid insecticides. 2. Previous studies have demonstrated that sulfoxaflor exposure can have a negative impact on the reproductive output of bumblebee colonies, but the specific life‐history variables that underlie these effects remain unknown. 3. Here, we used a microcolony‐based protocol to assess the sub‐lethal effects of chronic sulfoxaflor exposure on egg laying, larval production, ovary development, sucrose consumption, and mortality in bumblebees. Following a pre‐registered design, we exposed colonies to sucrose solutions containing 0, 5, 10 and 250ppb of sulfoxaflor. Exposure at 5 ppb has been previously shown to negatively impact colony reproductive success. 4. Our results showed that sulfoxaflor exposure at 5 ppb (lowest exposure tested) reduced the number of eggs found within the microcolonies (Hedge's d = −0.37), with exposed microcolonies also less likely to produce larvae (Hedge's d = −0.36). Despite this, we found no effect of sulfoxaflor exposure on ovarian development. Sulfoxaflor‐exposed bumblebees consumed less sucrose solution, potentially driving the observed reduction in egg laying. 5. Policy implications. Regulatory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are under increasing pressure to consider the potential impact of insecticides on wild bees, such as bumblebees, but sublethal effects can go undetected at lower‐tier testing. In identifying just such an effect for bumblebees exposed to sulfoxaflor, this study highlights that microcolony‐based protocols are a useful tool that could be implemented within an ecotoxicology framework. Furthermore, the results provide evidence for potentially negative consequences of pollinator exposure to an insecticide that is currently undergoing the licensing process in several EU member states.

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 ...

Urbanisierung ist ein globales Phänomen das den Erhalt von Biodiversität bedroht. Insektenbestäuber sind ein wichtiger Teil unserer Biodiversität, die wichtige Ökosystemdienstleistungen bereitstellen, jedoch durch Habitatverlust gefährdet werden. Meine Dissertation untersucht wie sich Urbanisierung auf Insektenbestäuber, deren Parasitenbefall und deren Interaktion mit Pflanzen auswirkt und beschäftigt sich mit der Beziehung zwischen Biodiversität und Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Meine Ergebnisse zeigen, dass mit zunehmender Urbanisierung die Insektendiversität sinkt und der Parasitenbefall von Bestäubern steigt. Dennoch sind die Diversität und die Anzahl von Blütenbesuchen von Hymenopteren in Städten höher als auf dem Land und einer der wichtigsten Faktoren, um Bestäubungsdienste zu prognostizieren. Ich schlußfolgere daher, dass entsprechend gemanagte Städte zum Erhalt von Hymenopteren, besonders Bienen, beitragen können und als Hotspot für Bestäubungsdienstleistungen fungieren können.

Background. Pollinators, which provide the agriculturally and ecologically essential service of pollination, are under threat at a global scale. Habitat loss and homogenisation, pesticides, parasites and pathogens, invasive species, and climate change have been identified as past and current threats to pollinators. Actions to mitigate these threats, e.g., agri-environment schemes and pesticide-use moratoriums, exist, but have largely been applied post-hoc. However, future sustainability of pollinators and the service they provide requires anticipation of potential threats and opportunities before they occur, enabling timely implementation of policy and practice to prevent, rather than mitigate, further pollinator declines. Methods.Using a horizon scanning approach we identified issues that are likely to impact pollinators, either positively or negatively, over the coming three decades. Results.Our analysis highlights six high priority, and nine secondary issues. High priorities are: (1) corporate control of global agriculture, (2) novel systemic pesticides, (3) novel RNA viruses, (4) the development of new managed pollinators, (5) more frequent heatwaves and drought under climate change, and (6) the potential positive impact of reduced chemical use on pollinators in non-agricultural settings. Discussion. While current pollinator management approaches are largely driven by mitigating past impacts, we present opportunities for pre-emptive practice, legislation, and policy to sustainably manage pollinators for future generations.

Background. Pollinators, which provide the agriculturally and ecologically essential service of pollination, are under threat at a global scale. Habitat loss and homogenisation, pesticides, parasites and pathogens, invasive species, and climate change have been identified as past and current threats to pollinators. Actions to mitigate these threats, e.g., agri-environment schemes and pesticide-use moratoriums, exist, but have largely been applied post-hoc. However, future sustainability of pollinators and the service they provide requires anticipation of potential threats and opportunities before they occur, enabling timely implementation of policy and practice to prevent, rather than mitigate, further pollinator declines. Methods.Using a horizon scanning approach we identified issues that are likely to impact pollinators, either positively or negatively, over the coming three decades. Results.Our analysis highlights six high priority, and nine secondary issues. High priorities are: (1) corporate control of global agriculture, (2) novel systemic pesticides, (3) novel RNA viruses, (4) the development of new managed pollinators, (5) more frequent heatwaves and drought under climate change, and (6) the potential positive impact of reduced chemical use on pollinators in non-agricultural settings. Discussion. While current pollinator management approaches are largely driven by mitigating past impacts, we present opportunities for pre-emptive practice, legislation, and policy to sustainably manage pollinators for future generations.

Background. Pollinators, which provide the agriculturally and ecologically essential service of pollination, are under threat at a global scale. Habitat loss and homogenisation, pesticides, parasites and pathogens, invasive species, and climate change have been identified as past and current threats to pollinators. Actions to mitigate these threats, e.g., agri-environment schemes and pesticide-use moratoriums, exist, but have largely been applied post-hoc. However, future sustainability of pollinators and the service they provide requires anticipation of potential threats and opportunities before they occur, enabling timely implementation of policy and practice to prevent, rather than mitigate, further pollinator declines. Methods.Using a horizon scanning approach we identified issues that are likely to impact pollinators, either positively or negatively, over the coming three decades. Results.Our analysis highlights six high priority, and nine secondary issues. High priorities are: (1) corporate control of global agriculture, (2) novel systemic pesticides, (3) novel RNA viruses, (4) the development of new managed pollinators, (5) more frequent heatwaves and drought under climate change, and (6) the potential positive impact of reduced chemical use on pollinators in non-agricultural settings. Discussion. While current pollinator management approaches are largely driven by mitigating past impacts, we present opportunities for pre-emptive practice, legislation, and policy to sustainably manage pollinators for future generations.

This article is a joint effort of the working group TRANSBEE and an outcome of two workshops kindly supported by sDiv, the Synthesis Centre for Biodiversity Sciences within the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded by the German Science Foundation (FZT 118). New datasets were performed thanks to the Insect Pollinators Initiative (IPI grant BB/I000100/1 and BB/I000151/1), with participation of the UK-USA exchange funded by the BBSRC BB/I025220/1 (datasets #4, 11 and 14). The IPI is funded jointly by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Scottish Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the Living with Environmental Change Partnership. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF