Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees

Nature volume 521, pages 77–80 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Understanding the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees is vital because of reported declines in bee diversity and distribution1,2,3 and the crucial role bees have as pollinators in ecosystems and agriculture4. Neonicotinoids are suspected to pose an unacceptable risk to bees, partly because of their systemic uptake in plants5, and the European Union has therefore introduced a moratorium on three neonicotinoids as seed coatings in flowering crops that attract bees6. The moratorium has been criticized for being based on weak evidence7, particularly because effects have mostly been measured on bees that have been artificially fed neonicotinoids8,9,10,11. Thus, the key question is how neonicotinoids influence bees, and wild bees in particular, in real-world agricultural landscapes11,12,13. Here we show that a commonly used insecticide seed coating in a flowering crop can have serious consequences for wild bees. In a study with replicated and matched landscapes, we found that seed coating with Elado, an insecticide containing a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, applied to oilseed rape seeds, reduced wild bee density, solitary bee nesting, and bumblebee colony growth and reproduction under field conditions. Hence, such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees1,2,3 may have been underestimated. The lack of a significant response in honeybee colonies suggests that reported pesticide effects on honeybees cannot always be extrapolated to wild bees.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Paired design with replicated landscapes.
Figure 2: Bee density and reproduction.
Figure 3: Bumblebee colony development.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Biesmeijer, J. C. et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354 (2006)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dupont, Y. L., Damgaard, C. & Simonsen, V. Quantitative historical change in bumblebee (Bombus spp.) assemblages of red clover fields. PLoS ONE 6, e25172 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartomeus, I. et al. Historical changes in northeastern US bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4656–4660 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339, 1608–1611 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elbert, A., Haas, M., Springer, B., Thielert, W. & Nauen, R. Applied aspects of neonicotinoid uses in crop protection. Pest Manag. Sci. 64, 1099–1105 (2008)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. European Commission Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances. OJ L 139, 12–26 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dicks, L. Bees, lies and evidence-based policy. Nature 494, 283 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gill, R. J., Ramos-Rodriguez, O. & Raine, N. E. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491, 105–108 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Henry, M. et al. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336, 348–350 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Whitehorn, P. R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F. L. & Goulson, D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336, 351–352 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281, (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. European Food Safety Authority Towards an integrated environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors on bees: review of research projects in Europe, knowledge gaps and recommendations. EFSA J. 12, 3594 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pisa, L. W. et al. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 22, 68–102 (2015)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jeschke, P., Nauen, R., Schindler, M. & Elbert, A. Overview of the status and global strategy for neonicotinoids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 59, 2897–2908 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Scott-Dupree, C. D., Conroy, L. & Harris, C. R. Impact of currently used or potentially useful insecticides for canola agroecosystems on Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Megachile rotundata (Hymentoptera: Megachilidae), and Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 102, 177–182 (2009)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Arena, M. & Sgolastra, F. A meta-analysis comparing the sensitivity of bees to pesticides. Ecotoxicology 23, 324–334 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cresswell, J. E., Roberts, F.-X. L., Florance, H. & Smirnoff, N. Clearance of ingested neonicotinoid pesticide (imidacloprid) in honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Pest Manag. Sci. 70, 332–337 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lodhi, A., Malik, N. N. & Azam, F. Movement, persistence and uptake by plants of 14C-labelled cyfluthrin. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 3, 104–109 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rundlöf, M., Persson, A. S., Smith, H. G. & Bommarco, R. Late-season mass-flowering red clover increases bumble bee queen and male densities. Biol. Conserv. 172, 138–145 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feltham, H., Park, K. & Goulson, D. Field realistic doses of pesticide imidacloprid reduce bumblebee pollen foraging efficiency. Ecotoxicology 23, 317–323 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gill, R. J. & Raine, N. E. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behaviour induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Funct. Ecol. 28, 1459–1471 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mommaerts, V. et al. Risk assessment for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicology 19, 207–215 (2010)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cutler, G. C., Scott-Dupree, C. D., Sultan, M., MacFarlane, A. D. & Brewer, L. A large-scale field study examining effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola on honey bee colony health, development, and overwintering success. PeerJ 2, e652 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Holzschuh, A., Dormann, C. F., Tscharntke, T. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance. Oecologia 172, 477–484 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Blacquière, T., Smagghe, G., van Gestel, C. A. M. & Mommaerts, V. Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 21, 973–992 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Krupke, C. H., Hunt, G. J., Eitzer, B. D., Andino, G. & Given, K. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS ONE 7, e29268 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products. Chapter 2: guidance on identifying aspects of environmental concern. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 33, 113–114 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. European Food Safety Authority Scientific opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the guidance documents on aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J. 8, 1821 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Forbes, V. E. & Calow, P. Promises and problems for the new paradigm for risk assessment and an alternative approach involving predictive systems models. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31, 2663–2671 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Köhler, H. R. & Triebskorn, R. Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: can we track effects to the population level and beyond? Science 341, 759–765 (2013)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Kuhn, A. Honeybee foraging in differentially structured landscapes. Proc. Biol. Soc. 270, 569–575 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Greenleaf, S. S., Williams, N. M., Winfree, R. & Kremen, C. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596 (2007)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Meier, U. Entwicklungsstadien Mono- Und Dikotyler Pflanzen. BBCH Monografie. 2nd edn (Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land und Forstwirtschaft, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hughes, J., Reay, G. & Watson, J. Insecticide use on Scottish oilseed rape crops: historical use patterns and pest control options in the absence of neonicotinoid seed treatments. In Proc. Crop Protection in Northern Britain 21–26 (2014)

  35. Cutler, G. C. & Scott-Dupree, C. D. Exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola has no long-term impact on honey bees. J. Econ. Entomol. 100, 765–772 (2007)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Garthwaite, D. G. et al. Pesticide Usage Survey Report 250. Arable Crops in the United Kingdom 2012 (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2013)

  37. Gunnarson, A. Färre frön med hybrider. Svensk Frötidning 2, 9–10 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Douwes, P., Hall, R., Hansson, C. & Sandhall, Å. Insekter. En Fälthandbok (Interpublishing, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Holmström, G. Humlor. Alla Sveriges Arter - Så Känner Du Igen Dem i Naturen Och i Trädgården (Östlings bokförslag, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mossberg, B. & Cederberg, B. Humlor i Sverige - 40 Arter Att Älska Och Förundras Över (Bonnier Fakta, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Raw, A. The biology of the solitary bee Osmia rufa (L.) (Megachilidae). T. Roy. Ent. Soc. London 124, 213–229 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Torchio, P. F. Field experiments with the pollinator species, Osmia lignaria propinqua Cresson (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae) in apple orchards: III, 1977 studies. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 57, 517–521 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bosch, J. & Kemp, W. P. Developing and establishing bee species as crop pollinators: the example of Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit trees. Bull. Entomol. Res. 92, 3–16 (2002)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Schiele, S. Do resources or natural enemies drive bee population dynamics in fragmented habitats? Ecology 89, 1375–1387 (2008)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Artportalen Swedish Species Observation System, Swedish Species Information Centre, SLU. http://www.artportalen.se (access, 9 February 2014)

  46. Graystock, P. et al. The Trojan hives: pollinator pathogens, imported and distributed in bumblebee colonies. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1207–1215 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Imdorf, A., Buehlmann, G., Gerig, L., Kilchenmann, V. & Wille, H. A test of the method of estimation of brood areas and number of worker bees in free-flying colonies. Apidologie (Celle) 18, 137–146 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Delaplane, K. S., van der Steen, J. & Guzman-Novoa, E. Standard methods for estimating strength parameters of Apis mellifera colonies. J. Apicult. Res. 52, 1 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Imdorf, A. & Gerig, L. Course in Determination of Colony Strength (Swiss Bee Research Centre, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jonsson, O., Villar, R. P., Nilsson, L. B., Eriksson, M. & Königsson, K. Validation of a bioanalytical method using capillary microsampling of 8 µl plasma samples: application to a toxicokinetic study in mice. Bioanalysis 4, 1989–1998 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jonsson, O. et al. Capillary microsampling of 25 µl blood for the determination of toxicokinetic parameters in regulatory studies in animals. Bioanalysis 4, 661–674 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jonsson, O. in Microsampling in Pharmaceutical Bioanalysis (eds Zane, P. & Emmons, G. T.) 68–82 (Future Science Ltd, 2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D. & Schabenberger, O. SAS for Mixed Models 2nd edn (SAS Institute Inc., 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Franklin, M. T., Winston, M. L. & Morandin, L. A. Effects of clothianidin on Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colony health and foraging ability. J. Econ. Entomol. 97, 369–373 (2004)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Larson, J. L., Redmond, C. T. & Potter, D. A. Assessing insecticide hazard to bumble bees foraging on flowering weeds in treated lawns. PLoS ONE 8, e66375 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fauser-Misslin, A., Sadd, B., Neumann, P. & Sandrock, C. Influence of combined pesticide and parasite exposure on bumblebee colony traits in the laboratory. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 450–459 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. European Food Safety Authority EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA J. 11, 3295 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  58. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology A Large-Scale Field Experiment to Quantify the Impacts of Neonicotinoids (NNIs) on Honeybees (The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the farmers for collaboration, the project group for feedback, A. Gunnarson for farmer contacts and seeds, M. Ahlström Olsson and Lindesro AB for bumblebee colonies, A. Andersson and C. Du Rietz for examining bumblebee colonies, B. Andréasson, T. Carling and A. Andersson for producing and assessing honeybee colonies, J. Kreuger for discussions on pesticide quantification, and M. Stjernman for extracting land use information. Funding was provided by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency to R.B., I.F., T.R.P. and H.G.S., by the Carl Tryggers Foundation for Scientific Research, the Royal Physiographic Society, and the Swedish Research Council (330-2014-6439) to M.R, and by Formas to H.G.S. and R.B.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, 223 62, Sweden

    Maj Rundlöf, Georg K. S. Andersson, Veronica Hederström, Johanna Yourstone & Henrik G. Smith

  2. Lund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund, 223 62, Sweden

    Georg K. S. Andersson, Lina Herbertsson, Björn K. Klatt & Henrik G. Smith

  3. Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 750 07, Sweden

    Riccardo Bommarco & Ingemar Fries

  4. Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 750 07, Sweden

    Ove Jonsson

  5. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Centre for Chemical Pesticides, Uppsala, 750 07, Sweden

    Ove Jonsson

  6. Swedish Board of Agriculture, Jönköping, 551 82, Sweden

    Thorsten R. Pedersen

Authors
  1. Maj Rundlöf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georg K. S. Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Riccardo Bommarco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ingemar Fries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Veronica Hederström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lina Herbertsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ove Jonsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Björn K. Klatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Thorsten R. Pedersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Johanna Yourstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Henrik G. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.B., I.F., T.R.P. and H.G.S. conceived the project. M.R. designed the study, coordinated the work, analysed the data, and prepared the manuscript. G.K.S.A., V.H., L.H., B.K.K. and J.Y. collected the data. O.J. quantified the pesticide residues. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results and writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maj Rundlöf.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 O. bicornis emergence and B. terrestris colonies.

a, Mean (± 95% confidence limits) proportion emergence of O. bicornis from cocoons in relation to treatment (control or insecticide seed coating), with higher emergence for males than females (generalized linear mixed model, binomial error distribution, logit link; F1, 14 = 14.97, P = 0.0017), no difference between treatments (F1, 7 = 0.71, P = 0.43) and no interaction (F1, 14 = 0.01, P = 0.94). n = 8 fields per treatment, with 12 female and 15 male cocoons at each field. Photos (with permission; Morgan Boch): left, emerged O. bicornis cocoon; right, O. bicornis female at a trap nests filled with cardboard nest tubes. b, Mean (± 95% confidence limits) weight of B. terrestris colonies at placement at the fields in relation to treatment (linear mixed model, F1, 7 = 0.99, P = 0.35). n = 8 fields per treatment, with six colonies at each field. Photos (M.R.): left, B. terrestris worker foraging in the oilseed rape; right, house containing three B. terrestris colonies. Means and confidence limits in panels a and b are based on back-transformed, model-estimated least square means. c, B. terrestris silk cocoon width distribution of all cocoons in four colonies (two from two different control fields and two from two different fields with insecticide seed treatment) initially examined to separate between queen and worker/male cocoons. Dashed vertical line indicates selected cut-off width at 12 mm (the lowest value between the two peaks), with queens larger (or equal) and workers/males smaller. Photo (M.R.): B. terrestris colony under examination.

Extended Data Figure 2 Power curves for honeybee colony strength.

a, b, Relationship between power and effect size estimated for the honeybee model (Extended Data Table 6), with effect size expressed as the difference in honeybee colony strength (number of bees per colony) (a) and the percentage change in colony strength (b) between colonies at control fields and at fields with insecticide seed coating after placement at the oilseed rape fields. Grey reference lines indicate a power of 0.8 and the corresponding effect size.

Extended Data Table 1 2013 field size and 2011 and 2013 land use in the landscapes surrounding (radius = 2 km) the oilseed rape
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Phenology (date, BBCH33 and flower cover) in the oilseed rape fields and delivery, placement and survey* of bees
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 Use of plant protection products in the oilseed rape fields during the 2013 growing season
Full size table
Extended Data Table 4 Wild bee density in oilseed rape fields and borders in relation to insecticide seed treatment and covariates
Full size table
Extended Data Table 5 Statistical tests and mean values for bee-related variables in relation to the insecticide seed treatment in the oilseed rape fields
Full size table
Extended Data Table 6 Bumblebee colony growth (net weight gain) and honeybee colony strength (adult bees per hive) in relation to insecticide seed treatment
Full size table
Extended Data Table 7 Number of individuals of wild bee species or groups at control (n = 8) and insecticide-treated (n = 8) oilseed rape fields
Full size table
Extended Data Table 8 Residues of neonicotinoids (n) and a pyrethroid (p) in bee-collected pollen and nectar from control fields and fields sown with insecticide treated seeds
Full size table

Related audio

PowerPoint slides

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rundlöf, M., Andersson, G., Bommarco, R. et al. Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521, 77–80 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14420

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14420

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing