Search for: All records

Abstract Most pesticide research has focussed on risk to managed honeybees, but other managed and wild bees are also exposed to pesticides. Critically, we know little about the magnitude and sources of risk to honeybees compared with other bees during crop pollination.To compare pesticide exposure and risk across wild and managed bees, we sampled the main bee groups present during bloom in 20 apple orchards, including managed honeybees (Apis mellifera), managed bumblebee workers (Bombus impatiens), wild mining bees (Andrenaspp. andAndrena [Melandrena]spp.), bumblebee foundress queens (Bombus impatiens) and eastern carpenter bees (Xylocopa virginica). We screened all bees for 92 pesticides and computed a Risk Quotient using available toxicity data (honeybee LD₅₀s), adjusting for differences in toxicity known to scale with body mass. To gain insight into exposure origin, we compared residues in bees to those in focal orchard apple and dandelion flowers.Nearly all bee samples contained pesticides (95%), with the average contamination level ranging from 7.1 ± 2.8 parts per billion (ppb) inB. impatiensworkers to 388.4 ± 146.2 ppb inAndrena. Exposure profiles were similar for all bees exceptA. mellifera, whose unique exposure profile included high levels of the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam.All bee groups except wildB. impatiensqueens had at least one sample exceeding a US Environmental Protection Agency or European Food Safety Authority exposure level of concern.Apis melliferaexperienced significantly greater risk than other bee groups, with 63% and 81% of samples exceeding an acute or chronic exposure level of concern, respectively. Risk to honeybees was driven primarily by high thiamethoxam levels not found in focal orchard flowers and likely originating outside the orchard.Synthesis and applications: We find that pesticide exposure and risk differ between honeybees and other managed and wild bees during apple pollination. Furthermore, pesticide exposure is a landscape‐scale phenomenon and therefore measures to reduce exposure must consider the surroundings beyond focal farms. Limiting orchard sprays, while reducing on‐farm exposures, will not protect far‐foraging bees from off‐farm exposures such as thiamethoxam, which we hypothesize is coming from nearby seed‐treated corn fields planted during apple bloom. 

Abstract Floral nectar is frequently colonised by microbes. However, nectar microbial communities are typically species‐poor and dominated by few cosmopolitan genera. One hypothesis is that nectar constituents may act as environmental filters. We tested how five non‐sugar nectar compounds as well as elevated sugar impacted the growth of 12 fungal and bacterial species isolated from nectar, pollinators, and the environment. We hypothesised that nectar isolated microbes would have the least growth suppression. Additionally, to test if nectar compounds could affect the outcome of competition between microbes, we grew a subset of microbes in co‐culture across a subset of treatments. We found that some compounds such as H₂O₂suppressed microbial growth across many but not all microbes tested. Other compounds were more specialised in the microbes they impacted. As hypothesised, the nectar specialist yeastMetschnikowia reukaufiiwas unaffected by most nectar compounds assayed. However, many non‐nectar specialist microbes remained unaffected by nectar compounds thought to reduce microbial growth. Our results show that nectar chemistry can influence microbial communities but that microbe‐specific responses to nectar compounds are common. Nectar chemistry also affected the outcome of species interactions among microbial taxa, suggesting that non‐sugar compounds can affect microbial community assembly in flowers.