Abstract

Neonicotinoid pesticides can have a multitude of negative sublethal effects on bees. Understanding their impact on wild populations requires accurately estimating the dosages bees encounter under natural conditions. This is complicated by the possibility that bees might influence their own exposure: two recent studies found that bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) preferentially consumed neonicotinoid-contaminated nectar, even though these chemicals are thought to be tasteless and odourless. Here, we used Bombus impatiens to explore two elements of these reported preferences, with the aim of understanding their ecological implication and underlying mechanism. First, we asked whether preferences persisted across a range of realistic nectar sugar concentrations, when measured at a series of time points up until 24 h. Second, we tested whether bees' neonicotinoid preferences were driven by an ability to associate their post-ingestive consequences with floral stimuli such as colour, location or scent. We found no evidence that foragers preferred to consume neonicotinoid-containing solutions, despite finding effects on feeding motivation and locomotor activity in line with previous work. Bees also did not preferentially visit floral stimuli previously paired with a neonicotinoid-containing solution. These results highlight the need for further research into the mechanisms underlying bees’ responses to these pesticides, critical for determining how neonicotinoid-driven foraging preferences might operate in the real world for different bee species.

Highlights

  • Pollinator declines are thought to be driven in part by the direct and indirect effects of increased exposure to pesticides [1].royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R

  • The total amount consumed was explained by the three-way interaction between time, imidacloprid concentration and sucrose concentration (F6,3029 = 2.15; p < 0.05): the amount bees consumed decreased over time (F1,3029 = 190.78; p < 0.0001; electronic supplementary material, figure S2), but this effect depended on the concentration of sucrose and imidacloprid

  • While the rewards used in electronic supplementary material, experiment S4 could be discriminated based on taste rather than postingestive consequences, the strong effects that we found using this protocol, combined with other evidence that bees are able to learn based on post-ingestive feedback on shorter timescales [31] supported the idea that this protocol would capture learning based on post-ingestive effects of neonicotinoids

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Pollinator declines are thought to be driven in part by the direct and indirect effects of increased exposure to pesticides [1].royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Neonicotinoids have been an area of particular concern, including being recently banned in the European 2 Union (EU Press Release, 27 April 2018). As systemic pesticides, they are often found in the nectar and pollen of both crop plants [2] and wildflowers in the vicinity of target applications (via dust from seed treatments or runoff [3]). After exposure, bees may be impaired in their motivation to forage [9,10,11] and collect less pollen [4,12,13,14,15] (but see [16]). Some of the clearest effects of neonicotinoids on bees’ behaviour are disruptions to locomotor activity [19,20,21,22,23], as well as to feeding motivation [23,24,25,26,27]

Objectives
Methods
Results
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