Aspects determining pesticide risks to wild bees

Brazil Roberta Nocelli, Marcia Ribeiro, Breno Freitas, Stephan Carvalho Kenya Dino Martins, Martha Mutiso, Christopher Odhiambo, Wanja Kinuthia, Mary Gikungu, Paul Ngaruiya, Gladys Maina, Pamela Kipyab, Muo Kasina Netherlands Harold van der Valk, Irene Koomen, Tjeerd Blacquire, Sjef van der Steen, Ivo Roessink, Jacoba Wassenberg

FAO Barbara Gemmill-Herren

Knowledge management of pesticide risks to wild pollinators for sustainable production of high-value crops in Brazil and Kenya

Pollination experts Bee ecologists Risk assessors Regulators

GEF/UNEP/FAO Global Action on Pollination Services

Objectives
Pilot study on aspects determining pesticide risks to wild bees

Elaborate risk profiles for pesticide effects on, in particular wild, bees in selected focal crops

Identify data gaps for risk assessment

Assess to what extent risk profiles can be used to guide preliminary risk assessment and management

Wild bees

Social (non-Apis mellifera)

(partly) managed/domesticated wild

Solitary

wild

Methodology
Focal crops for which the survey was conducted
Brazil Melon Tomato Kenya Coffee Cucurbits French beans Tomato Netherlands Apple Tomato (greenhouse)

Methodology
Data collection Brazil, Kenya, Netherlands

Expert consultation (pollination and crop protection experts, agronomists, pesticide registration authority) Literature Farmer surveys in three districts

Kenya (additional)

Methodology

Survey on factors that may influence pesticide risk to bees

Likelihood of exposure: crop factors Likelihood of exposure: bee biology-related factors Pesticide use & application factors Pesticide properties

Methodology
Possibility of exposure: crop factors e.g. Overlap between crop/weed flowering and pesticide application Overlap between bee activity and pesticide application Presence of extrafloral nectaries Infestation with honeydew producing insects Presence of drinking water in crop

Methodology
Possibility of exposure: bee biology-related factors e.g. Period of day when foraging Time spent foraging (during day / during growing season) Quantity of pollen/nectar collected per day Pollen & nectar consumption Location of nest compared to crop field Foraging range

Methodology
Pesticide use & application factors (for all pesticide products used in the crop) e.g. Pesticide a.i. Mode of action (systemicity, IGR) Formulation type Mode of application Application rate & frequency Use of systemic pesticides in previous rotational crop

Methodology
Pesticide properties, (for all pesticide a.i.s used in the crop) Contact and oral LD50 adult Oral LD50 brood
Toxicity data for honey bee, and for other bees, where available

Half-life in pollen/nectar Half-life on plant foliage

Main pollinators/crop visitors

Brazil
Crop
Melon

Important pollinator
Apis mellifera (Africanized honeybee) Bombus spp. (bumblebees) Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees) Augochlora sp. (sweat bees) Examalopsis auropilosa (longhorned bees) Melipona spp. (stingless bees)

Crop visitor
Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees) Frieseomelitta doederleini (stingless bee) Apis mellifera (Africanized honeybee)

Tomato

Main pollinators/crop visitors

Kenya
Crop
Coffee

Important pollinator
Apis mellifera (African honeybee) Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees) Patelapis spp. (sweat bees) Apis mellifera (African honeybee) Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees) Halictidae (sweat bees) Apis mellifera (African honeybee) Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees) Megachilidae (leafcutter bees) Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees) Halictidae (sweat bees)

Crop visitor

Cucurbits

French beans

Tomato

Apis mellifera (African honeybee)

Main pollinators/crop visitors

Netherlands
Crop
Apple

Important pollinator
Apis mellifera (European honeybee) Osmia rufa (mason bee) Bombus spp. (bumblebees) Andrena spp. (sand bee) Bombus terrestris (bumblebee)

Crop visitor

Tomato

Likelihood of exposure crop factors

Availability of data generally good crop flowering periods bee activity periods presence of extrafloral nectaries presence of honeydew producing insects Data gaps weed flowering periods crop as source of drinking water

Likelihood of exposure crop factors

Conclusion Likelihood of exposure of wild bees based on crop factors High: all crops but coffee Overlap between flowering or bee activity and pesticide applications Some crops: presence of extrafloral nectories and/or honeydew producing insects

Low-moderate: coffee Pesticide applications during flowering generally avoided But presence of honeydew producing insects

Likelihood of exposure bee biology

Availability of data moderate (some species, e.g. Bombus, Osmia, Halictidae) to poor (most species) Data gaps e.g. Foraging durations (per day and per season) Foraging ranges Quantities of pollen/nectar collected and/or consumed

Likelihood of exposure bee biology

Example: Halictidae (sweat bees)

Halictid bee

Honey bee

Solitary social Nest location: ground nests fixed Nest location: in-field & field margin Activity period: entire day (crepuscular) Foraging range: 50 100 m Forager is often reproducing female Days spent foraging: up to 60 days per forager Egg laid on pollen load; no subsequent larval feeding

Social Nest location: hive mobile Nest location: outside field Activity period: morning early afternoon Foraging range: 1500 m (and more) Forager is never reproducing female

Days spent foraging: up to 20 days per forager

Royal jelly (and some pollen) progressively fed to larvae

Influence of bee biology on exposure risk?

Pesticide use
Brazil
Melon Tomato Cucur -bits

Kenya
Coffee French Beans Tomato

Netherlands
Apple Tomato

# a.i. registered on crop

# a.i used on crop # a.i. used when bees are active # insecticides used when bees are active

65
? ? [28]

133
? ? [71]

12
32 28 16

10
11 0 0

18
20 20 11

20
27 22 15

?
57 54 13

?
88 60 21

Pesticide properties
Data availability

Honeybee acute toxicity: good (e.g. EU endpoints/Footprint; USEPA ECOTOX database; FAO database) Honeybee larval/chronic toxicity: moderate Bumblebee toxicity: moderate (Mommaerts & Smagghe 2011) Other bees toxicity: very limited Residues & half-lives in pollen/nectar or on plant surfaces: very limited

Conclusions

Risk profile

focus cropping system qualitative or semi-quantitative estimate of exposure no acceptability criteria (comparative assessment)

Risk assessment (regulatory)

focus pesticide quantitative estimate of exposure acceptability criteria (HQ/RQ trigger)

Risk profile

In absence of risk assessment procedures for wild bees.

Risk profile can be a useful tool to:

Conduct a qualitative evaluation of pesticide risk in specific cropping systems Structure the discussion among researchers, regulators, farmers, beekeepers on pesticide risks to wild bees

Identify data/information gaps

Set priorities for further research (crops, bees, pesticides) Set priorities for risk mitigation (crops)

More information

Risk profile pilot study & methodology

Report available early 2012

Review of pesticide risk factors for major groups of wild bees

Report of special session at ICPBR Cholula Conference available in early 2012

FAO Global Action on Pollination Services

http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/biodiversity/pollination/en/

Thank you!
Work supported by:

Wageningen UR

Netherlands: Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & Innovation Government of Kenya Government of Brazil GEF/UNEP/FAO Global Action on Pollination Services