25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mouthparts of the bumblebee ( Bombus terrestris) exhibit poor acuity for the detection of pesticides in nectar

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Bees are important pollinators of agricultural crops, but their populations are at risk when pesticides are used. One of the largest risks bees face is poisoning of floral nectar and pollen by insecticides. Studies of bee detection of neonicotinoids have reported contradictory evidence about whether bees can taste these pesticides in sucrose solutions and hence avoid them. Here, we use an assay for the detection of food aversion combined with single-sensillum electrophysiology to test whether the mouthparts of the buff-tailed bumblebee ( Bombus terrestris) detect the presence of pesticides in a solution that mimicked the nectar of oilseed rape ( Brassica napus). Bees did not avoid consuming solutions containing concentrations of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, or sulfoxaflor spanning six orders of magnitude, even when these solutions contained lethal doses. Only extremely high concentrations of the pesticides altered spiking in gustatory neurons through a slight reduction in firing rate or change in the rate of adaptation. These data provide strong evidence that bumblebees cannot detect or avoid field-relevant concentrations of pesticides using information from their mouthparts. As bees rarely contact floral nectar with other body parts, we predict that they are at high risk of unwittingly consuming pesticides in the nectar of pesticide-treated crops.

          eLife digest

          Bees and other pollinators often encounter pesticides while collecting nectar and pollen from agricultural crops. Widely used to protect crops, pesticides are toxic to insects and have contributed to population declines in all bee species.

          One way that bees might be able to avoid pesticides is using their incredibly good sense of taste, which can detect subtle differences between sugary solutions. Therefore, if pesticides taste bitter to them, bumblebees may be able to avoid feeding treated crops. However, it was not clear if bees can taste pesticides. Previous studies investigating whether they can taste a group of pesticides called “neonicotinoids” gave contradictory results. Furthermore, explicit behavioural tests of their ability to taste pesticides had not been performed.

          To shed light on this, Parkinson et al. compared the responses of neurons within structures used for detecting taste in bumblees eating a pure sugar solution with those eating a solution containing pesticides. Experiments with a group of pesticides known as ‘cholinergic’ showed that neuron responses were the same whether the sugar solution contained pesticides or not. Secondly, by looking at bumblebee feeding behaviour, Parkinson et al. found that bees offered both pure and pesticide-laced sugar solutions would still drink the pesticide solution, even when it was toxic enough to make them very ill or kill them. This was the case regardless of which pesticide was used.

          The experiments showed that bumblebees cannot use their sense of taste to avoid drinking pesticide-laced nectar, which is an important finding for policymakers making decisions about the use of pesticides on agricultural crops. It is possible that bees simply have a poor sense of bitter taste. However, in the future, these methods could be used to identify a compound that tastes bad to bees. Including such a compound in pesticides, could deter bees from feeding on pesticide-treated crops that do not require pollination, and help to restore their declining populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis

          For the past twenty five years the NIH family of imaging software, NIH Image and ImageJ have been pioneers as open tools for scientific image analysis. We discuss the origins, challenges and solutions of these two programs, and how their history can serve to advise and inform other software projects.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops.

              The extent of our reliance on animal pollination for world crop production for human food has not previously been evaluated and the previous estimates for countries or continents have seldom used primary data. In this review, we expand the previous estimates using novel primary data from 200 countries and found that fruit, vegetable or seed production from 87 of the leading global food crops is dependent upon animal pollination, while 28 crops do not rely upon animal pollination. However, global production volumes give a contrasting perspective, since 60% of global production comes from crops that do not depend on animal pollination, 35% from crops that depend on pollinators, and 5% are unevaluated. Using all crops traded on the world market and setting aside crops that are solely passively self-pollinated, wind-pollinated or parthenocarpic, we then evaluated the level of dependence on animal-mediated pollination for crops that are directly consumed by humans. We found that pollinators are essential for 13 crops, production is highly pollinator dependent for 30, moderately for 27, slightly for 21, unimportant for 7, and is of unknown significance for the remaining 9. We further evaluated whether local and landscape-wide management for natural pollination services could help to sustain crop diversity and production. Case studies for nine crops on four continents revealed that agricultural intensification jeopardizes wild bee communities and their stabilizing effect on pollination services at the landscape scale.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Reviewing Editor
                Role: Senior Editor
                Journal
                eLife
                Elife
                eLife
                eLife
                eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
                2050-084X
                18 December 2023
                2023
                : 12
                : RP89129
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Biology, University of Oxford ( https://ror.org/052gg0110) Oxford United Kingdom
                [2 ] Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College ( https://ror.org/041kmwe10) London United Kingdom
                University of Neuchâtel ( https://ror.org/00vasag41) Switzerland
                University of St Andrews ( https://ror.org/02wn5qz54) United Kingdom
                University of Neuchâtel Switzerland
                University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
                University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
                University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
                Imperial College London London United Kingdom
                University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
                University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
                University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8192-3178
                https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4084-0201
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9481-8094
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2749-021X
                Article
                89129
                10.7554/eLife.89129
                10727498
                38109195
                606fb4cb-26fd-4001-8c59-3a816128c8f9
                © 2023, Parkinson et al

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 May 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000268, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council;
                Award ID: BB/S000402/1
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000288, Royal Society;
                Award ID: NIF/R1/19368
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000038, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada;
                Award ID: PDF-546125-2020
                Award Recipient :
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Ecology
                Neuroscience
                Custom metadata
                Bees are at risk of consuming harmful pesticides found in nectar because they cannot detect them using their mouthparts.
                prc

                Life sciences
                bee,pesticide,neonicotinoid,acetylcholine,gustation,taste,other
                Life sciences
                bee, pesticide, neonicotinoid, acetylcholine, gustation, taste, other

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log