Tag Archives: imidacloprid

Bees and neonicotinoids – another twist in the tale.

To the agrochemical companies and to many farmers they are essential tools ensuring efficient crop production. To environmentalists and to many bee scientists they are dangerous chemicals contributing to declining bee populations. I am talking, of course, about the neonicotinoid insecticides widely used in this country to control insect pests.

Last week two papers were published on-line in the journal Nature emphasising the dangers posed by these chemicals.

One paper, from a team at Newcastle University, investigated whether honeybees and bumblebees showed any preference (positive or negative) for food containing neonicotinoids; there had been suggestions that bees might avoid neonicotinoid-treated crops in the field. The new lab-based work showed that, when offered a choice, bees preferred to eat sucrose solution (nectar) containing neonicotinoids (imidacloprid or thiamethoxam) rather than control sucrose solution. If this occurs in the field then bees may forage preferentially on crops containing chemicals toxic to their health and inadvertently bring back these toxins to their nests.

The second paper, from scientists at Lund University in Sweden, showed that the neonicotinoid clothianidin, when used in the field, damaged wild bee (bumblebee and solitary bee) populations but was without effect on honeybees. I want to focus on this paper as it is the first controlled study of the effects of a neonicotinoid on honeybees, bumblebees and solitary bees under field conditions. Let’s start by looking at the background.

Three years is a long time in science

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Back in 2012, two studies were published showing that neonicotinoids, even when they didn’t kill bees, could affect bee behaviour in a way that impaired survival of honeybee and bumblebee colonies. The findings showed that these chemicals could contribute to a decline in the numbers of bees and other pollinators. These observations had a big effect on policy and indirectly contributed to the current partial ban on the use of three neonicotinoids in Europe.

One of the papers was from Dave Goulson’s lab, then at Stirling, and found that even at the low doses typically encountered on treated crops in the field, neonicotinoids substantially reduced the number of queens produced by bumblebee colonies, so impairing survival. In Goulson’s study, bumblebees were treated with neonicotinoids in the lab before being allowed to fly freely. This is called a semi-field design and some have suggested that the findings cannot be extrapolated to the real world. The levels of neonicotinoids have also been criticised although these were very carefully thought through.

There was considerable media interest in this work, nicely described in Goulson’s latest book (A Buzz in the Meadow) and the UK Food and Environment Agency (FERA) labs in York hastily set up a preliminary field trial to examine the problem. During the spring and summer of 2012 they studied three fields of oil seed rape, one treated with the neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, another treated with the neonicotinoid, clothianidin and a third untreated field to act as a control. Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) nests were placed by each field and the occupants were left to fly freely and build their colonies. Extensive analyses were performed including colony growth, the pollen collected by the bees and pesticide residues detected in pollen and nectar.

Superficially this sounds like a rigorous study (free flying bees, compare neonicotinoid-treated with control, plenty of analyses and so on) and it should have given an indication of the effect of neonicotinoids under real-world field conditions. The success of the trial depended on the bees foraging on the crop near their nests so there should have been clothianidin-exposed colonies, imidacloprid-exposed colonies and neonicotinoid-free controls. Unfortunately the bees had other ideas; they largely ignored the flowering oil seed rape by their nests, foraging further away and returning with pollen from crops treated with another neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam. This completely negated the original design so that, in my view, no valid conclusions can be drawn from the study, despite official pronouncements.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The new Swedish study

The FERA work was a valiant but flawed attempt to study the effects of neonicotinoids on bumblebees under field conditions and it was clear that a properly conceived field trial was required. The ambitious new study from Lund University mostly fills that void.

The Lund team selected 16 landscapes surrounding spring-sown oil seed rape fields in different parts of southern Sweden in 2013. The landscapes were divided in to 8 pairs on the basis of the nature of the surrounding countryside and for each pair one was sown with seed treated with the neonicotinoid, clothianidin and the other was sown without neonicotinoid, to act as a control. All seed also contained a fungicide. The neonicotinoid-treated seed also contained a pyrethroid to protect plant roots but there was no evidence that the bees came in to contact with this chemical.

Honeybee hives, bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) colonies and solitary bee (Osmia bicornis) cocoons were placed by each field during the flowering season and their progress was followed. Additionally, the numbers of free flying wild bees (bumblebee and solitary bee) were assessed at each field during the flowering season. Pollen brought back by bees was analysed for flower type and for pesticide residues. The study was large enough to allow statistical analyses to be performed so that valid conclusions could be drawn although the design was unable to detect effects smaller than 20%.

Unlike the FERA study, bees did forage on the oil seed rape adjacent to their colony based on pollen analysis, although this was not an exclusive choice. Bees near treated fields brought back pollen and nectar containing clothianidin whereas those near untreated fields did not. The study design seemed to have been successful and the results were clear:

1. Honeybee hives behaved similarly by treated and untreated fields; there was no effect of the pesticide on colony strength. This is good news for honeybees and for beekeepers and agrees with a 2014 field study from Canada also using clothianidin.

2. Bumblebee colony growth and reproduction were reduced near treated fields. This agrees with earlier semi-field studies so that it is now difficult to avoid the conclusion that agricultural use of neonicotinoids has damaging effects on bumblebees.

3. Whereas solitary bees placed by untreated fields emerged from cocoons and built new nests, this did not occur for cocoons situated near treated fields, possibly because of navigational problems caused by insecticide exposure.

4. The number of free-flying wild bees was reduced by about 50% at the treated fields.

The implications of the new Swedish study

Honeybees were not affected by foraging from a neonicotinoid-treated crop whereas wild bees (bumblebees and solitary bees) suffered reductions in numbers and reproductive ability. Wild bees are, therefore, more sensitive to neonicotinoids than honeybees. This may be because, as James Cresswell at Exeter has shown, honeybees break down neonicotinoids more quickly than bumblebees so that honeybees experience lower doses.

The effect of the neonicotinoid on wild bees is an important result for several reasons. Wild bees are important pollinators, contributing more than half of the “pollination service” required for crops. Crop yield and quality will suffer if these insects are lost so we need to look after them and that may need to include rethinking use of pesticides.

The differential sensitivity of bee types to neonicotinoids shows that environmental risk assessment of new and existing insecticides, typically performed in short term lethal studies on honeybees, is inadequate to determine long term effects on different bee types in the field.

These new data will add to the pressure to extend the European moratorium on the use of three neonicotinoids as seed dressings after the initial two year period ends in December. There is, however, concern that if neonicotinoids are not available then farmers will use older insecticides that may be more dangerous for bees. Perhaps farmers should rethink their use of pesticides and return to a “treat when required” policy rather than using neonicotinoids prophylactically.

When the three neonicotinoids were temporarily banned in 2013, farmers claimed that the yields of crops would be drastically reduced. It is interesting that in the first season when crops were grown from untreated seed in the EU, the yields actually increased. Perhaps we should rethink the use of chemicals more generally in modern farming.

500 dead bumblebees – the chemical blitz of modern farming

In September I wrote about the mysterious death of 500 bumblebees. New information has emerged about this incident so I have rewritten the post:

Earlier this year, Sheila Horne was walking at Hacton Parkway, a public park and conservation area in Havering, East London. April is normally a good time to see insects in their prime so she was very surprised to find many dead and dying bees near the path. She alerted local naturalist, Tony Gunton who identified the insects as bumblebee queens from three species, red-tailed, buff-tailed and common carder. This was not a minor incident, there were as many as 500 bees affected.

Chemical analysis of the dead bees

Natural England was appointed to investigate the insect deaths and samples of dead bees were sent to FERA in York for analysis. The results were released in August and showed that the bees were contaminated with the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid and two fungicides, flusilazole and epoxiconazole. Imidacloprid can be very poisonous to bees and bumblebees are more susceptible to this chemical than honeybees. Imidacloprid is currently subject to a two year partial ban for some agricultural uses in the EU. Neither fungicide on its own is especially toxic to bees although flusilazole was phased out this October because of its high toxicity to fish and because of other potential toxic effects.

A nearby field of oil seed rape as the source of the chemicals?

The chemical analysis raises two questions. Where did the bumblebees pick up these chemicals? Were these chemicals responsible for the bee deaths?

Neither question can be answered definitively but as so many dying bees were found together in one place, it seems likely that the source of the poisoning was close by. Hacton Parkway lies alongside arable farmland and at the time of the poisoning some of the land was planted with flowering oil seed rape, so it is a reasonable conclusion that the bees had been feeding there. Because of the chemical analysis, it was initially assumed that the crop had been planted using seed treated with imidacloprid ahead of the ban and that the imidacloprid had killed the bees. Natural England have recently concluded their investigation and found that in fact the seed used to plant the crop had been treated with another neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam. Neither imidacloprid nor epoxiconazole had been used on the crop and the last spraying with flusilazole was in November 2013. Analysis of the dead bees for thiamethoxam failed to detect any of the chemical but this could have been due to losses before the analysis.

What killed the bees?

So, why did these bees die? Because there are so many unanswered questions we cannot be sure. The dead bees were contaminated with imidacloprid but the oil seed rape crop was not the source. We can only assume that the bees fed elsewhere on imidacloprid-treated crops and were flying with this chemical in their systems. It is known that at typical field concentrations, imidacloprid does not kill bumblebees.

There is also the question of how the bees were exposed to the two fungicides if the oil seed rape had not been sprayed with these chemicals during the flowering season. As with the imidacloprid, we have to assume that the bees were exposed elsewhere. It is possible that the fungicides weakened the bees or made them more susceptible to the neonicotinoids. There is some evidence for such interactions for other insecticide/fungicide pairings.

Because the bees died close to the treated crop, the focus of lethality has to be on the thiamethoxam, now known to have been used on the oil seed rape. Although thiamethoxam is indeed an insecticide, there is evidence from one lab-based study and another field study (albeit lacking controls) that, at field-realistic concentrations, thiamethoxam is not lethal to bumblebees. I find it unlikely, therefore, that thiamethoxam alone killed the bees, providing the farmer followed safety guidelines.

We shall never know what actually happened at Hacton Parkway but my best guess is that these bees were flying with the three chemicals in their system and encountered the thiamethoxam-treated oil seed rape. When they fed from it, they picked up the additional neonicotinoid. Two neonicotinoids, with perhaps synergistic effects of the fungicides, were too much and they died.

The investigation is now closed!

The investigation is now closed and it will be impossible to resolve the many questions raised by this incident, which is a pity. Despite this uncertainty, the results of the chemical analysis stand. These bees died with three chemicals in their bodies: one neonicotinoid and two fungicides. They were also exposed to a second neonicotinoid. This was no laboratory experiment; this reflects what is happening around us when these chemicals are used. Have a look at this report to see more evidence of the widespread use of chemicals in UK farming. Our agricultural practices have led to this chemical blitz and the result is the deaths of important pollinators. How often is this occurring on a lower level but not being noticed or reported?

I should like to thank Tony Gunton (local naturalist) and Helen Duggan (Press Officer, Health and Safety Executive) for sharing information about this incident.

500 dead bumblebees – pesticides leave their deadly trace

Earlier this year, Sheila Horne was walking at Hacton Parkway, a public park and conservation area in Havering, East London. April is normally a good time to see insects in their prime so she was very surprised to find many dead and dying bees near the path. She alerted local naturalist, Tony Gunton who identified the insects as bumblebee queens from three species, red-tailed, buff-tailed and common carder. This was not a minor incident, there were as many as 500 bees affected.

Natural England was appointed to investigate the insect deaths and samples of dead bees were sent to FERA in York for analysis. The results were released a few weeks ago and showed that the bees were contaminated with the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid and two fungicides, flusilazole and epoxiconazole. Imidacloprid is very poisonous to bees with bumblebees being more susceptible to this chemical than honeybees. Imidacloprid is now subject to a two year partial ban for some agricultural uses. Neither fungicide on its own is especially toxic to bees although flusilazole is due to be phased out this October because of its high toxicity to fish and because of other potential toxic effects.

But where did the bumblebees pick up these chemicals? We cannot be sure but as so many dying bees were found together in one place, it seems likely that the source of the poisoning was close by. Hacton Parkway lies alongside arable farmland and at the time of the poisoning some of the land was planted with flowering oil seed rape, so it is a reasonable conclusion that the bees had been feeding there. It is thought that the crop had been sown in autumn 2013 using seed treated with imidacloprid, just ahead of the ban. According to John Rennie of Natural England there had been no spray applications of insecticides or fungicides since the beginning of 2014.

So, why did these bees die? Because there are so many unanswered questions we cannot be sure. The imidacloprid used on the oil seed rape has been blamed by some but I can’t see how this could be a problem if the farmer followed safety guidelines. There is good evidence that exposure to typical agricultural levels of imidacloprid does not kill bumblebees although there is also good evidence for sub-lethal effects on behaviour and reproduction. It is, however, becoming apparent that neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid accumulate in soil so perhaps exposure levels of the dead bees were higher than expected. Soil testing would be informative here.

There is also the question of how the bees were exposed to the two fungicides if no spraying was performed during the flowering season? Does this mean that these chemicals persist for long periods or has there been spraying elsewhere? Perhaps the fungicides weakened the bees or made them more susceptible to the imidacloprid. There is some evidence for such interactions for other insecticide/fungicide pairings.

Although the investigation continues, it may be quite difficult to resolve some of these questions. Despite this uncertainty, the results of the chemical analysis stand. These bees died with three chemicals in their bodies: one insecticide and two fungicides. This was no laboratory experiment; this reflects what is happening around us when these chemicals are used. Our agricultural practices have led to this and the result is the deaths of important pollinators. How often is this occurring on a lower level but not being noticed or reported?

With thanks to Tony Gunton for talking to me about this incident

Disturbing the natural order – the case of neonicotinoid insecticides and farmland birds

Apus apus 01.jpg
A swift

 

One of my favourite nature writers is Mark Cocker who has the ability to capture a scene or an idea in a few hundred words. Despite his immense knowledge he never loses his sense of awe and with clever use of metaphor, his descriptions of nature leap in to life.

Here is Cocker writing about the interdependence of birds and insects:
“…… that vast efflorescence of insect life is integral to spring. After all, those swifts newly screaming over our village and the chorus that greets us at first light are little more than arthropods processed by avian digestive systems”.

Another favourite nature writer, Kenneth Allsop wrote, nearly fifty years ago, also about bird/insect interdependence. He took the example of a pair of dunnocks in the breeding season who consume more than 1000 insects each day just to maintain their chicks. Many of those insects, he pointed out, will be garden pests, “worth bearing in mind when irritated by bird damage to the green peas and apple buds”.

Despite this obvious dependence of bird life on insects, we still dump insecticides on to our gardens, parks and farmland with little real thought about the long term consequences.

One class of insecticide that has recently attracted scrutiny is the neonicotinoids. The neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990s and are now very widely used to kill insect pests on a broad range of crops. In the UK, for example, a large proportion of the oil seed rape is grown using seed treated with neonicotinoids. One of the advantages of the neonicotinoids is their selectivity for invertebrates; in principle they have low toxicity towards vertebrates. There has, however, been increasing concern about effects of the neonicotinoids on non-target insects such as bees and the accumulation of the chemicals in soil and water courses with more general effects on invertebrates.

New worries about the neonicotinoids surfaced last week in a paper published in Nature by Hallmann and colleagues from Radboud University in the Netherlands. The Dutch group investigated whether these chemicals might be affecting the numbers of farmland birds indirectly by reducing the numbers of insects that these birds depend upon especially in the breeding season.

They took advantage of long-term monitoring schemes in the Netherlands to compare the average concentrations of one neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) in surface water between 2003 and 2009 with bird population trends over the same period. The comparison was made in different regions across the entire country and focussed on 15 species of common farmland bird that depend on invertebrates during the breeding season.

Yellow wagtail.jpg
Yellow wagtail (one of the farmland birds suffering a decline)

 

The comparison showed that in regions where concentrations of imidacloprid in surface water were higher, population growth rates of these insectivorous birds were lower or negative. Although superficially this suggests that imidacloprid has caused the decline in bird numbers, we first need to rule out alternative explanations for the apparent association.

Hallmann and colleagues consider two possible alternatives: first, the apparent effect of imidacloprid might actually reflect an ongoing decline in bird numbers that predated the introduction of this insecticide; second, the apparent imidacloprid effect might actually reflect changes in land use linked to agricultural intensification. They eliminate both of these alternatives.

Another possible confounding factor that the authors seem to have ignored is the effect of other pesticides. The Netherlands is a very intensively farmed country with more than 60% of land under cultivation. Many different chemicals are used to control pests including imidacloprid. It seems likely that areas with high imidacloprid use will be associated with high usage of other chemicals. Another Dutch group has analysed the large numbers of chemicals present in Dutch agriculture and shown that, in some regions, concentrations of imidacloprid are high enough to kill invertebrates but levels of other chemicals also exceed toxic doses. So, it could be imidacloprid that is leading to the decline in farmland birds or it could be a generally toxic environment. Either way, the conclusion is bleak and ought to make us reflect on the way we are producing our food.

Although the effects of imidacloprid described in this paper are open to interpretation, the evidence against the neonicotinoids continues to accumulate and some authors believe they are having widespread deleterious effects on the natural environment. George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian last week, called for a complete ban on the use of these insecticides.

The Center for Food Safety, a US-based non profit organisation, recently took a different approach to the neonicotinoid problem by asking how much the insecticides actually increase crop yield. Analysing 19 published studies, they found either inconsistent or no evidence that neonicotinoids increase yield. So, astonishingly, dumping neonicotinoids on farm crops has little discernable effect on productivity. Have we all been conned by the agrochemical companies?

 

[picture credits:  “Apus apus 01” by Paweł Kuźniar (Jojo_1, Jojo) – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Yellow wagtail” by Andreas TrepteOwn work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons.]