Abstract

Simple SummaryGlyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) can be found worldwide throughout conventional agroecosystems due to their unique and effective mode of action. Their use is generally not considered harmful to honey bees, and, consequently, foragers may encounter food sources that are potentially contaminated with GBH residues. However, recent studies found GBH to cause sublethal effects in bees, and therefore give rise to concern. While most related research has addressed such effects under laboratory conditions, field-realistic approaches under free-flying conditions are scarce. Here, we explore if GBH influences several important performance parameters at the colony level using standard and modified regulatory testing methods. Colony conditions (i.e., colony weight gain, individual worker bee survival, and overwintering) were not affected when subjected to chronic GBH exposure in a realistic range (high and low). In line with previous laboratory results, the high range of treatments revealed a delayed brood development of workers and reduced hatching weight of adults when compared with the control group. However, we concluded that more drastic effects on honey bee health did not seem to appear, as a broad range of performance parameters remained completely unaffected. In future research, the underlying mechanisms of the developmental delay that was confirmed here should be carefully investigated.The ongoing debate about glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and their implications for beneficial arthropods gives rise to controversy. This research was carried out to cover possible sublethal GBH effects on the brood and colony development, adult survival, and overwintering success of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) under field conditions. Residues in bee relevant matrices, such as nectar, pollen, and plants, were additionally measured. To address these questions, we adopted four independent study approaches. For brood effects and survival, we orally exposed mini-hives housed in the “Kieler mating-nuc” system to sublethal concentrations of 4.8 mg glyphosate/kg (T1, low) and 137.6 mg glyphosate/kg (T2, high) over a period of one brood cycle (21 days). Brood development and colony conditions were assessed after a modified OECD method (No. 75). For adult survival, we weighed and labeled freshly emerged workers from control and exposed colonies and introduced them into non-contaminated mini-hives to monitor their life span for 25 consecutive days. The results from these experiments showed a trivial effect of GBH on colony conditions and the survival of individual workers, even though the hatching weight was reduced in T2. The brood termination rate (BTR) in the T2 treatment, however, was more than doubled (49.84%) when compared to the control (22.11%) or T1 (20.69%). This was surprising as T2 colonies gained similar weight and similar numbers of bees per colony compared to the control, indicating an equal performance. Obviously, the brood development in T2 was not “terminated” as expected by the OECD method terminology, but rather “slowed down” for an unknown period of time. In light of these findings, we suggest that chronic high GBH exposure is capable of significantly delaying worker brood development, while no further detrimental effects seem to appear at the colony level. Against this background, we discuss additional results and possible consequences of GBH for honey bee health.

Highlights

  • Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) were introduced to the market almost fifty years ago, with a unique mode of action that is superior to most other active ingredients [1]

  • In experiments 1, 2, and 3, irrespective of the time interval after the application, glyphosate residues remained constant in all the sugar matrices

  • Our finding is supported by Vazquez et al [22], who reported similar effects when larvae were exposed to chronic GBH feeding in vitro, as they stated that molting was delayed and that the fresh weight was reduced

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) were introduced to the market almost fifty years ago, with a unique mode of action that is superior to most other active ingredients [1]. Its high efficiency and the easy-to-apply practice have led to the increasing use of GBH during the past three decades. In numbers, this means that over 820 million kilograms of glyphosate were globally applied in 2014, where the last decade alone accounted for 6.1 billion kilograms (reviewed in [2,3]). Used on farmland, the agricultural utilization of GBH includes, but is not limited to, pre-sowing, pre-harvest (e.g., desiccation), and stubble application. It reduces labor and machine costs, whereas other pesticides intend to improve crop yields. GBH is far more than just a weed killer and must be seen as an agronomical tool implemented in the working practice of farmers worldwide [4]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call