ArticlePDF Available


Recent concern over global pollinator declines has led to considerable research on the effects of pesticides on bees. Although pesticides are typically not encountered at lethal levels in the field, there is growing evidence indicating that exposure to field-realistic levels can have sublethal effects on bees, affecting their foraging behaviour, homing ability and reproductive success. Bees are essential for the pollination of a wide variety of crops and the majority of wild flowering plants, but until now research on pesticide effects has been limited to direct effects on bees themselves and not on the pollination services they provide. Here we show the first evidence to our knowledge that pesticide exposure can reduce the pollination services bumblebees deliver to apples, a crop of global economic importance. Bumblebee colonies exposed to a neonicotinoid pesticide provided lower visitation rates to apple trees and collected pollen less often. Most importantly, these pesticide-exposed colonies produced apples containing fewer seeds, demonstrating a reduced delivery of pollination services. Our results also indicate that reduced pollination service delivery is not due to pesticide-induced changes in individual bee behaviour, but most likely due to effects at the colony level. These findings show that pesticide exposure can impair the ability of bees to provide pollination services, with important implications for both the sustained delivery of stable crop yields and the functioning of natural ecosystems.
548 | NATURE | VOL 528 | 24/31 DECEMBER 2015
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop
pollination services provided by bumblebees
Dara A. Stanley
, Michael P. D. Garratt
, Jennifer B. Wickens
, Victoria J. Wickens
, Simon G. Potts
& Nigel E. Raine
Recent concern over global pollinator declines has led to
considerable research on the effects of pesticides on bees
Although pesticides are typically not encountered at lethal levels
in the field, there is growing evidence indicating that exposure to
field-realistic levels can have sublethal effects on bees, affecting
their foraging behaviour
, homing ability
and reproductive
. Bees are essential for the pollination of a wide variety of
crops and the majority of wild flowering plants
, but until now
research on pesticide effects has been limited to direct effects on
bees themselves and not on the pollination services they provide.
Here we show the first evidence to our knowledge that pesticide
exposure can reduce the pollination services bumblebees deliver to
apples, a crop of global economic importance. Bumblebee colonies
exposed to a neonicotinoid pesticide provided lower visitation rates
to apple trees and collected pollen less often. Most importantly,
these pesticide-exposed colonies produced apples containing fewer
seeds, demonstrating a reduced delivery of pollination services. Our
results also indicate that reduced pollination service delivery is not
due to pesticide-induced changes in individual bee behaviour, but
most likely due to effects at the colony level. These findings show
that pesticide exposure can impair the ability of bees to provide
pollination services, with important implications for both the
sustained delivery of stable crop yields and the functioning of
natural ecosystems.
Biotic pollination is required by a large proportion of crops world-
, disproportionately including those with economically high
values and nutritional content
. The contribution of pollination services
to global agriculture has been steadily increasing and was estimated at
US$361 billion in 2009 (ref. 14). In addition, animal-vectored pol-
lination is required by an estimated 87.5% of all angiosperms to
, making this process fundamental to the functioning of
natural ecosystems. Therefore, any threats to the delivery of pollina-
tion services could have serious consequences for both food security
and wider ecosystem function. Neonicotinoid pesticides, the most
widely used group of insecticides worldwide
, are implicated as one
of the contributing factors in the global declines of bee pollinators
Although previous work has shown that bumblebee foraging activity,
colony growth and reproduction can be altered by sublethal exposure
to neonicotinoid pesticides
, all research on pesticide effects has
focused on bees as the service providers, but has not assessed the polli-
nation service itself. Therefore it is unknown whether pesticide exposure
actually results in changes to the delivery of pollination services to crops
and wild plants (for a discussion of potential mechanisms see ref. 17).
This information is essential to assess the severity of pesticide effects on
ecosystem services, and to inform actions to mitigate negative effects.
Apples are an important global crop, with 75 million tonnes har-
vested from 95 countries in 2012 and an estimated export value of
US$71 billion (Food and Agriculture Organisation statistics, http:// Apple crops benefit from insect pollination with
seed number, fruit set, fruit size and shape all improved with increased
pollination services
. Bumblebees are major pollinators of apples
and many other crops across the world
, and are exposed to low levels
of pesticides when foraging in agricultural areas. Here we investigated
how exposure to low, field-realistic levels of a widely used neonicoti-
noid insecticide (thiamethoxam) could affect the ability of bumblebees
to pollinate apple trees. We pre-exposed colonies to 2.4 parts per billion
(ppb) thiamethoxam, 10 ppb thiamethoxam or control solutions (con-
taining no pesticide; rationale for selecting pesticide concentrations
and relevance of results are outlined in Methods and Supplementary
Information) in their nectar source (artificial sugar water) for a period
of 13 days (8 colonies per treatment, that is, 24 colonies in total).
Subsequently, colonies were brought to the field and allowed access to
virgin apple trees of a dessert (Scrumptious) variety, along with trees
of a polliniser (Everest) variety, in pollinator exclusion cages in which
we observed both individual- and colony-level behaviour. At the end of
the season, apples from tested trees were collected to assess pollination
service delivery in terms of fruit and seed set.
When whole colonies were given access to apple trees we found
an effect of insecticide treatment on visitation rates to apple flowers
= 3.1, P = 0.05); colonies exposed to 10 ppb pesticide provided
lower visitation rates to apple flowers than controls (Fig. 1a; Extended
Data Table 1). We also found an effect of treatment on the number of
foraging trips from which bees returned carrying pollen (χ
= 9.65,
degrees of freedom (df) = 2, P = 0.008), with fewer bees from colo-
nies exposed to 10 ppb pesticide returning with pollen than work-
ers from control colonies (Fig. 1b). Apple abortion rate was affected
by treatment (χ
= 5.94, df = 2, P = 0.05), with trees pollinated by
School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, UK.
Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of
Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK.
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
Control 2.4 ppb 10 ppb
Visitation rate per patch
(no. visits per ower per min)
No. bees carrying pollen
Control 2.4 ppb 10 ppb
Figure 1 | Effects of pesticide treatment on colony-level behaviour.
a, b, Visitation rates provided by colonies to Scrumptious apple flowers
(number of visits per flower per minute) (a) and number of foraging trips
from which bees returned carrying pollen (b), from colonies exposed to
different pesticide treatments. Eight colonies were observed per treatment
group, and means ± s.e.m. are shown, *P < 0.05. NS, not significant.
Results from statistical models are given in Extended Data Table 1.
24/31 DECEMBER 2015 | VOL 528 | NATURE | 549
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
2.4 ppb pesticide-exposed colonies aborting more fruit than controls
(Fig. 2a), although overall levels of fruit set did not differ (χ
= 4.1,
df = 2, P = 0.13) and there was no difference in the proportion of trees
that produced fruit among treatments (χ
= 1.2, df = 2, P = 0.55).
However, we found a significant effect of treatment on the number
of seeds produced per apple, an indicator of fruit quality, (χ
= 8.27,
df = 2, P = 0.02); flowers pollinated by colonies exposed to 10 ppb pesti
cide produced significantly fewer seeds than those pollinated by 2.4 ppb
colonies (Fig. 2b). These results show that colonies exposed to pesticide
can deliver reduced pollination services to apple crops.
These colony-level effects could be explained by several mecha-
nisms, including individual behavioural changes. Individual bees
exposed to 10 ppb pesticide spent longer foraging (F
= 3.72, P = 0.03;
Fig. 3a), visited more Scrumptious flowers (χ
= 12.79, df = 2,
P = 0.002) and switched more frequently between varieties dur
ing each trip (χ
= 11.32, df = 2, P = 0.003: Fig. 3b; Extended Data
Table 2), which suggests a modification of their floral preferences
Neonicotinoids target neurotransmitter receptors in insects and, as
well as causing neuronal inactivation
, some have been shown to be
partial neuronal agonists
; therefore increases in individual foraging
activity may be explained by acute increases in neuronal activity caus-
ing hormesis (a biphasic response in which low levels of an otherwise
toxic compound can result in stimulation of a biological process
However, we found no effect of treatment on whether flowers visited
by these individual bees produced apples (χ
= 0.88, df = 2, P = 0.64),
showed higher rates of fruit abortion (χ
= 0.42, df = 2, P = 0.81) or
different levels of seed set (χ
= 0.11, df = 2, P = 0.95). This suggests
that bees exposed to pesticide must somehow be behaving differently
on flowers, in a way that was not readily observable in our experiment
(for example, changes in stigmatic contact
), such that increased visit
frequency did not result in better pollination service delivery at the
individual level.
Our results suggest that effects on pollination service delivery are
not due to individual behavioural modification, but instead are most
likely due to changes in colony activity levels as evidenced by reduced
floral visitation rates and pollen collection. Bees collecting pollen may
be more effective pollinators as they can deposit more pollen on plant
; therefore if pesticide-exposed colonies are collecting less
pollen they are also likely to be depositing less on stigmas than bees
from control colonies. While individual bees exposed to pesticides
visited more flowers, overall pesticide-exposed colonies provided lower
visitation rates and collected less pollen, thus explaining why reduced
pollination services were delivered. Gill & Raine
found that control
(untreated) bees improved their pollen foraging performance over time,
whereas imidacloprid-treated bees became less successful foragers;
foragers in our colony-level experiment may have carried out multiple
trips and become more experienced foragers, potentially explaining
why we find effects on pollen collection here but not in the individual-
level experiment. Interestingly, for almost all parameters measured in
this study we found significant effects on both individual behaviour
and colony-level function following 10 ppb thiamethoxam exposure,
but not at the 2.4 ppb level. This suggests that there are dose-dependent
effects that lie between these two exposure levels. Both these exposure
levels are highly relevant as they are within the range measured in the
field, but further work is necessary to elucidate the lowest level at which
these effects become significant (for further discussion of rationale for
exposure and relevance of results, see Methods and Supplementary
A 36% reduction in the number of seeds produced in apples polli-
nated by colonies exposed to 10 ppb pesticide in comparison to control
colonies has important agronomic implications for crop production.
The number of seeds in apples is closely linked to fruit crop quality in
most, but not all, varieties
and the enhancement of fruit quality,
particularly the proportion of Class 1 fruit, underpins the economic
value of UK orchards
: growers must typically thin out their apple
crops making the quality of each fruit very important. Therefore
impacts on seed set and fruit quality have direct implications for apple
production value, and as seed set and fruit set are positively linked
in many varieties, reduced seed set can have direct negative implica-
tions for fruit set and total crop yield
. As certain apple varieties in
the UK currently experience pollination deficits
, mitigating the
effects of pesticides on bumblebee pollinators could improve polli-
nation service delivery. Apple crops are visited by a wide variety of
pollinator groups, and neonicotinoid pesticides differentially affect
insect taxa
. Apart from bumblebees, one of the other main polli-
nator groups that visit apple flowers are solitary bees
, and it has been
suggested that pesticide sensitivity of solitary bees is likely to be higher
than for larger, social species like bumblebees
. Therefore, apple
pollination in a field setting could be more vulnerable to pesticide
exposure than measured here.
Bumblebees are essential pollinators of many important crops other
than apples, including field beans, berries, tomatoes and oilseed rape
If exposure to pesticides alters pollination services to apple crops, it
is likely that these other bee-pollinated crops would also be affected.
Most importantly, the majority of wild plant species benefit from insect
Proportion of fruit set
2.4 ppb
10 ppb
Control 2.4 ppb 10 ppb
No. seeds produced per apple
Figure 2 | Effects of pesticide treatment on fruit and seed set.
a, b, The change in proportion of fruit set for trees (48 trees in total, 16 per
treatment) pollinated by colonies exposed to different pesticide treatments
measured early (May) and late (September), which represents fruit
abortion level (a), and number of seeds produced per apple (134 apples in
total; 53 in control, 46 in 2.4 ppb and 35 in 10 ppb pesticide treatments)
pollinated by colonies exposed to different pesticide treatments (b). Eight
colonies were observed per treatment group, and means ± s.e.m. are
shown, *P < 0.05, † indicates a difference of P = 0.06 between control and
10 ppb. NS, not significant. Results from statistical models are given in
Extended Data Table 1.
Control 2.4 ppb 10 ppb
Length of time spent foraging (s)
No. switches between varieties
Control 2.4 ppb 10 ppb
Figure 3 | Effects of pesticide treatment on individual bee behaviour.
a, b, Time spent foraging per foraging trip (seconds; n = 68 bees) (a) and
number of switches between Scrumptious and Everest apple varieties
(n = 93 bees) (b) for individual bees exposed to different pesticide
treatments. Means ± s.e.m. are shown, *P < 0.05, † indicates a difference
of P = 0.06 between control and 2.4 ppb. NS, not significant. Results from
statistical models are given in Extended Data Table 2.
550 | NATURE | VOL 528 | 24/31 DECEMBER 2015
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
pollination services
. Therefore reduced pollination by pesticide-
affected colonies, as evidenced by reduced seed set, also has significant
implications for pollination in wild systems. Many wild plant species
are both self-incompatible and pollen limited
, so any reduction in the
delivery of pollination services could have substantial effects on wild
plant communities and therefore wider ecosystem function.
Concerns over global bee declines are strongly driven by the need for
the essential pollination services they provide to both crops and wild
plants. The use of neonicotinoid pesticides presents a potential threat to
bee health and, although the evidence base reporting sublethal (behav-
ioural) effects of pesticides on bees is mounting
, we have shown for the
first time that there is also an important effect of pesticide exposure on
the pollination services bees provide. This information provides a new
perspective when trying to fully understand the trade-offs involved
when using insecticides, showing that both the potential benefits and
the true costs of pest control options need to be considered.
Online Content Methods, along with any additional Extended Data display items and
Source Data, are available in the online version of the paper; references unique to
these sections appear only in the online paper.
Received 8 July; accepted 23 October 2015.
Published online 18 November 2015.
1. Gill, R. J., Ramos-Rodriguez, O. & Raine, N. E. Combined pesticide exposure
severely aects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491,
105–108 (2012).
2. Whitehorn, P. R., O’Connor, S., Wäckers, F. L. & Goulson, D. Neonicotinoid
pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science
336, 351–352 (2012).
3. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. A restatement of the natural science evidence base
concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. B 281, 20140558 (2014).
4. Arena, M. & Sgolastra, F. A meta-analysis comparing the sensitivity of bees to
pesticides. Ecotoxicology 23, 324–334 (2014).
5. Rundlöf, M. et al. Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively
aects wild bees. Nature 521, 77–80 (2015).
6. Feltham, H., Park, K. & Goulson, D. Field realistic doses of pesticide
imidacloprid reduce bumblebee pollen foraging eciency. Ecotoxicology 23,
317–323 (2014).
7. Gill, R. J. & Raine, N. E. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging
behaviour induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Funct. Ecol. 28,
1459–1471 (2014).
8. Henry, M. et al. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in
honey bees. Science 336, 348–350 (2012).
9. Fischer, J. et al. Neonicotinoids interfere with specic components of
navigation in honeybees. PLoS One 9, e91364 (2014).
10. Klein, A. M. et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world
crops. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274, 303–313 (2007).
11. Ollerton, J., Winfree, R. & Tarrant, S. How many owering plants are pollinated
by animals? Oikos 120, 321–326 (2011).
12. Kleijn, D. et al. Delivery of crop pollination services is an insucient argument
for wild pollinator conservation. Nat. Commun. 6, 7414 (2015).
13. Eilers, E. J., Kremen, C., Greenleaf, S. S., Garber, A. K. & Klein, A. M. Contribution
of pollinator-mediated crops to nutrients in the human food supply. PLoS One
6, e21363 (2011).
14. Lautenbach, S., Seppelt, R., Liebscher, J. & Dormann, C. F. Spatial and temporal
trends of global pollination benet. PLoS One 7, e35954 (2012).
15. Goulson, D. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid
insecticides. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 977–987 (2013).
16. Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by
combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of owers. Science 347,
1255957 (2015).
17. Brittain, C. & Potts, S. G. The potential impacts of insecticides on the
life-history traits of bees and the consequences for pollination. Basic Appl. Ecol.
12, 321–331 (2011).
18. Sheeld, C. S. Pollination, seed set and fruit quality in apple: studies with
Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in the Annapolis Valley, Nova
Scotia, Canada. J. Pollinat. Ecol. 12, 120–128 (2014).
19. Garratt, M. P. D. et al. Pollination decits in UK apple orchards. J. Pollinat. Ecol.
12, 9–14 (2014).
20. Palmer, M. J. et al. Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal
inactivation in honeybees. Nat. Commun. 4, 1634 (2013).
21. Déglise, P., Grünewald, B. & Gauthier, M. The insecticide imidacloprid is a
partial agonist of the nicotinic receptor of honeybee Kenyon cells. Neurosci.
Lett. 321, 13–16 (2002).
22. Cutler, G. C. & Rix, R. R. Can poisons stimulate bees? Appreciating the potential
of hormesis in bee-pesticide research. Pest Manag. Sci. 71, 1368–1370
23. Sakamoto, R. L., Morinaga, S.-I., Ito, M. & Kawakubo, N. Fine-scale ower-
visiting behavior revealed by using a high-speed camera. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
66, 669–674 (2012).
24. Castro, S., Loureiro, J., Ferrero, V., Silveira, P. & Navarro, L. So many visitors and
so few pollinators: variation in insect frequency and eectiveness governs the
reproductive success of an endemic milkwort. Plant Ecol. 214, 1233–1245
25. Buccheri, M. & Di Vaio, C. Relationship among seed number, quality, and
calcium content in apple fruits. J. Plant Nutr. 27, 1735–1746 (2004).
26. Garratt, M. P. D. et al. Avoiding a bad apple: Insect pollination enhances
fruit quality and economic value. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 184, 34–40
27. Volz, R. K., Tustin, D. S. & Ferguson, I. B. Pollination eects on fruit mineral
composition, seeds and cropping characteristics of ‘Braeburn’ apple trees.
Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam) 66, 169–180 (1996).
28. Biddinger, D. J. et al. Comparative toxicities and synergism of apple orchard
pesticides to Apis mellifera (L.) and Osmia cornifrons (Radoszkowski). PLoS One
8, e72587 (2013).
29. Decourtye, A., Henry, M. & Desneux, N. Environment: overhaul pesticide testing
on bees. Nature 497, 188 (2013).
30. Burd, M. Bateman’s principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen
limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot. Rev. 60, 83–139 (1994).
Supplementary Information is available in the online version of the paper.
Acknowledgements We thank technicians at the University of Reading for
assistance in apple collection and seed counting, and E. van Leeuwen and
colleagues at Royal Holloway University of London for useful discussions. This
study was supported by UK Insect Pollinators Initiative grants BB/I000178/1
awarded to N.E.R. and BB/1000348/1 awarded to S.G.P. (funded jointly by the
Living with Environmental Change programme, Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Wellcome Trust, Scottish Government,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC)). N.E.R. is supported as the Rebanks
Family Chair in Pollinator Conservation by The W. Garfield Weston Foundation.
Author Contributions D.A.S. and N.E.R. conceived the project, D.A.S., N.E.R. and
M.P.D.G. designed the research, D.A.S., J.B.W and V.J.W. carried out the research,
D.A.S., N.E.R., M.P.D.G. and S.G.P. contributed equipment for the research, D.A.S.
analysed the data, all authors were involved in writing the manuscript.
Author Information Reprints and permissions information is available at The authors declare no competing financial
interests. Readers are welcome to comment on the online version of the
paper. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
D.A.S. ( or N.E.R. (
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Pesticide preparation. A stock pesticide solution was made by dissolving 100 mg
thiamethoxam (PESTANAL, Analytical Standard, Sigma Aldrich) in 100 ml
acetone (1 mg ml
). Aliquots of stock solution were added to 40% sucrose to
create treatment solutions of 10 μg l
(10 ppb) and 2.4 μg l
(2.4 ppb) thiameth-
oxam. These concentrations were chosen as field-realistic; the lower concentration
(2.4 ppb) was based on thiamethoxam concentrations found in nectar pots of
bumblebee colonies foraging in agricultural areas in the UK
and in pollen
collected by honeybees
, and the higher concentration (10 ppb) is within the range
measured in pollen and nectar and of a variety of treated crops
and contam-
inated wild flowers
, and has been used in previous studies examining effects
of another neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) on bumblebee behaviour
. A control
solution was also made by repeating the process outlined above but using an aliquot
of 10 ppb acetone only (that is, no pesticide).
Experimental setup. Twenty-four commercially reared Bombus terrestris audax
colonies were obtained from Biobest (Westerlo, Belgium) at the start of April 2014,
each containing a queen and an average of 99 workers (range 57–133).
Colonies were weighed on arrival to estimate the overall colony size, and each
assigned sequentially to one of three treatment groups (2.4 ppb thiamethoxam,
10 ppb thiamethoxam and control) based on decreasing mass (but randomly
assigned within block). Each day, three colonies (one from each treatment)
were assigned to treatment groups, until after 7 days all colonies were receiv-
ing treated sucrose (16 colonies exposed to thiamethoxam and 8 to control
solution). We chose this sequential exposure regime to mimic subsequent
field testing and ensure all colonies had comparable durations of exposure
to their treatment. Colonies were fed treated sucrose solution from a gravity
feeder inserted at the base of the nest box. Feeders were initially refilled every
2–3 days, and then every 1–2 days when the colonies had grown significantly.
Untreated, defrosted honeybee-collected pollen was provided to colonies every
2–3 days. Colonies were exposed to treatments for an average of 13 days (range
12–15) before field testing. Before being moved to the field, colonies had access
to a feeder containing sucrose (40%) in a laboratory flight arena for 48 h to
become accustomed to leaving the nest to forage. There was no difference in
colony weights at the start (ANOVA: F
= 0.091, P = 0.91) or end (ANOVA:
= 0.88, P = 0.43) of the experimental period, indicating no treatment effect
on colony size.
Field testing. Cage experiments were carried out at Sonning Farm, University
of Reading, UK. 100 apple trees of a commercial dessert apple (Scrumptious
variety) were moved into holding pollinator exclusion cages in mid-March 2014
before flowering to prevent insect visitation. Field experiments began when
trees were entering full flower in mid-April. Each day, one colony from each
treatment was taken from the laboratory, placed individually in one of the
three test cages and observed simultaneously (with one observer per cage) in
a randomized block design (see below for details of observations). Each day a
different treatment was assigned to each observer. Cages were 4.8 × 2.1 × 2.1 m
frames covered in polyethylene mesh (gauge size = 1.33 mm, Extended Data
Fig. 1). Observations were carried out on 8 dry, bright days from 16–26
April 2014 spanning the peak flowering of apples (daily means: maximum
temperature 16 °C, rainfall 2.5 mm). This flowering period limited the number of
days on which testing could be carried out, and therefore the number of colonies
that could be tested; as a result no statistical methods were used to predetermine
sample size. The investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments
and outcome assessment.
Individual-level measurements. Each morning, three cages were pop-
ulated with two virgin Scrumptious trees each from the holding cages
(mean ± s.e.m. = 130 ± 8.5 flowers per tree) as well as two polliniser trees (Everest
variety, mean ± s.e.m. = 305 ± 15 flowers per tree, Extended Data Fig. 1). The
number of flowers of each variety was standardized across cages to ensure equal
floral density each day, and 40 open and receptive flowers were marked with
cable ties on each Scrumptious tree for subsequent estimation of pollination ser-
vices (fewer flowers were marked on the last day of observations as there were
no longer 40 full-bloom flowers—flower numbers on these days were noted).
The nest boxes in each cage were then opened to allow a single worker to exit.
This bee was observed for the duration of its foraging trip (until it attempted
to return to the nest), or until 60 min had elapsed (Extended Data Fig. 2). The
duration of the foraging trip, the number of flowers of each apple variety visited,
and the handling time for each flower visit was recorded using Etholog software
(EthoLog: Behavioural observation transcription tool, University of Sao Paulo,
Brazil, 2011). If the individual bee did not visit any flowers within the first 20 min,
it was assumed not to be a forager and was captured, returned to the colony and
another bee released. All bees that foraged were paint-marked before they were
returned to the colony to ensure the same individuals were not observed twice.
This process was repeated until all cages had the same number of active foragers
recorded (3–5 bees per colony each day). Individual level observations took place
between 10:00 and 16:30.
Colony-level measurements. After individual-level observations, the two focal
Scrumptious trees in each cage were removed and replaced with two new virgin
trees. Again we standardized the number of flowers of each variety across cages
with 40 open and receptive flowers on each tree marked with cable ties. Colony
boxes were opened to allow free entry and exit to all active bees for a period of
60 min. This time period was chosen to avoid over-pollination of test flowers based
on pilot observations. Colony activity was monitored at the nest entrance using
video cameras. After an initial 10-min period to allow the bees to become accus-
tomed to the setup, four 10-min focal observations were carried out on separate
patches of Scrumptious flowers in each cage to estimate visitation rates. At the
end of the 60-min period, the Scrumptious trees were immediately removed to
prevent further visitation. Colony level observations were carried out between
14:30 and 18:30.
Estimation of pollination services. At the end of both the individual and colony
observation periods, all test trees were returned to holding cages in which they
were not visited by any other insects until apples were harvested at the end of the
season. An initial assessment of fruit set from marked flowers (indicating flowers
open during cage tests) was made at the end of May for all test Scrumptious trees to
assess how many flowers were proceeding to fruit set stage (and how many aborted,
Fig. 2a). Marked apples were collected on 27 August, and a final assessment made of
the proportion of marked flowers that had produced mature fruit (Extended Data
Fig. 2). In the lab, seed number was counted per apple for all collected fruit (274
apples from 96 trees across both experiments). Details of all data analyses carried
out are given in the supplementary information.
Data analysis. Individual level. Measures of the number of flowers visited,
numbers of switches between apple varieties, duration of total time in cage
(from when the bee left the colony box until it returned/end of 60 min period)
and time taken to visit the first flower (latency) were recorded for all indi-
vidual bees. For 68 of 93 bees observed (evenly distributed across cages and
treatments) a number of additional response variables were also recorded
including mean duration of the first 5 flower visits, number of inter flower
intervals longer than 60 s, mean duration of flower visits, mean period of time
between flower visits, length of time spent foraging (time between first and last
flower visit) and total time spent on flowers (sum of durations for all individual
flower visits). We tested for differences in these measures among treatments by
constructing mixed-effects models with pesticide treatment as a fixed effect.
As several variables differed among days, including weather, floral abundance
and the identity of colonies used, day of testing was included as a random
blocking factor in all models. Data were analysed in R version 3.1.0 (ref. 38),
using either linear mixed effects (LME) models with the lmer function in the
nlme package for continuous data
, generalized mixed effects (GLMM) models
with Poisson distribution used for response variables that were counts using the
glmer function in the lme4 package
, or the glmmPQL function in the MASS
when data were overdispersed. Models were validated by plotting
standardized residuals versus fitted values, normal qq-plots and histograms of
residuals, and continuous response variables were logarithmically transformed
(log (X + 1)) if necessary to improve residual fit. If treatment was significant,
Tukey’s post hoc tests were performed using the glht function in the multcomp
To assess differences in apple production on trees visited by pesticide exposed
and control bees, we examined a number of variables including the number
of fruits produced at the start of the season (May) and at the end (September;
Fig. 2a), the change in proportion of apples forming from marked flowers per tree
between the start and end measures (fruit abortion levels) and number of seeds
per apple (measured in early September; Fig. 2b). Models were run as described
previously with treatment as a fixed effect, although the tree on which fruits
were produced, the number of bees released and date of testing were included
as random effects. As a number of trees produced no fruit, seed set data were
analysed in two steps. First, we tested whether there was a treatment difference
in the number of trees that produced any fruit. Second, we tested for treatment
differences in seeds per apple (a measure that only included trees that had
produced some fruit).
Colony level. We tested for differences in colony activity levels (the combined
number of entries and exits by workers to the colony box) and the number
of bees carrying pollen among treatments using GLMM models in the MASS
, with Poisson distribution for count data. Treatment differences in
flower visitation rate to Scrumptious trees were tested using LME models
. Date
of testing was used as a random effect in all models (and patch included as a
random effect in the flower visitation rate model), and models were validated as
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
described above. Fruit abortion and seed set variables were analysed as described
for the individual level experiment, using tree and date of testing as random
31. Thompson, H. et al. Eects of neonicotinoid seed treatments on bumble bee
colonies under eld conditions. (Food and Environment Research Agency
(FERA), 2013).
32. Pilling, E., Campbell, P., Coulson, M., Ruddle, N. & Tornier, I. A four-year eld
program investigating long-term eects of repeated exposure of honey bee
colonies to owering crops treated with thiamethoxam. PLoS One 8, e77193
33. Castle, S. J., Byrne, F. J., Bi, J. L. & Toscano, N. C. Spatial and temporal
distribution of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in citrus and impact on
Homalodisca coagulata populations. Pest Manag. Sci. 61, 75–84 (2005).
34. Dively, G. P. & Kamel, A. Insecticide residues in pollen and nectar of a cucurbit
crop and their potential exposure to pollinators. J. Agric. Food Chem. 60,
4449–4456 (2012).
35. Botías, C. et al. Neonicotinoid residues in wildowers, a potential route of
chronic exposure for bees. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9, 12731–12740 (2015).
36. Krupke, C. H., Hunt, G. J., Eitzer, B. D., Andino, G. & Given, K. Multiple routes of
pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural elds. PLoS One 7,
e29268 (2012).
37. Stewart, S. D. et al. Potential exposure of pollinators to neonicotinoid
insecticides from the use of insecticide seed treatments in the
mid-southern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 9762–9769
38. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2011).
39. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R Development Core Team.
Package “nlme”: Linear and nonlinear mixed eects models. R package
version 3.1-104 (2012).
40. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. lme4: Linear mixed-eects
models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7 http://CRAN.R-project.
org/package= lme4 (2014).
41. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th edn
(Springer, 2002).
42. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general
parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Extended Data Figure 1 | An example of the experimental setup at the Sonning Farm field site. Experimental pollinator exclusion cages containing a
bumblebee colony (located in the corner of the cage) and potted experimental apple trees are shown. Photos: D.A.S.
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Extended Data Figure 2 | An experimental bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) worker visiting an apple flower (left), and an example of an apple
produced from a marked (yellow cable tie) apple flower (right; Scrumptious variety). Photos: D.A.S. and C. L. Truslove.
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Extended Data Table 1 | Results from the colony-level experiment
Signicant dierences (P 0.05) are highlighted in bold.
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Extended Data Table 2 | Results from the individual-level experiment
Signicance dierences (P 0.05) are highlighted in bold.
... Observations of bee behaviour were based on the work of Stanley et al. 42 . One colony and five field bean plants were used in each of the eight flight cages per study block for four days (Fig. 1). ...
... Using a well replicated methodology and tracking a number of different outcomes, we find no evidence for negative effects of sulfoxaflor, Crithidia bombi, or their interaction on our measures of bumble bee behaviour, bean pollination, or colony growth and rearing of sexuals. Our results indicate that sulfoxaflor may not be as harmful to bumble bee pollination provisioning as the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam and imidacloprid 42,66 , and that the conditions under which sulfoxaflor impacts reproduction may be narrower than previously expected 47 . Further, the presence of a parasitic stressor does not necessarily lead to the emergence of agrochemical impacts. ...
... Our semi-field experiment found no significant impact of sulfoxaflor at a field-realistic level of exposure on either colony or individual behaviour of bumble bees. Exposure to neonicotinoids, a related group of systemic agrochemicals that act as selective agonists of nicotinic acetyl choline receptors, has been linked to a reduction in bee visitation rate and pollen collection 42,67-69 , which translates into less efficient flower visiting behaviour resulting in a lower production of seeds 42 . In contrast, our results are in line with previous studies, where sulfoxaflor did not impair bee behaviour 50,70 or pollination by honeybees 71 , although impacts on bumble bees have been found 72 . ...
Full-text available
Many pollinators, including bumble bees, are in decline. Such declines are known to be driven by a number of interacting factors. Decreases in bee populations may also negatively impact the key ecosystem service, pollination, that they provide. Pesticides and parasites are often cited as two of the drivers of bee declines, particularly as they have previously been found to interact with one another to the detriment of bee health. Here we test the effects of an insecticide, sulfoxaflor, and a highly prevalent bumble bee parasite, Crithidia bombi, on the bumble bee Bombus terrestris. After exposing colonies to realistic doses of either sulfoxaflor and/or Crithidia bombi in a fully crossed experiment, colonies were allowed to forage on field beans in outdoor exclusion cages. Foraging performance was monitored, and the impacts on fruit set were recorded. We found no effect of either stressor, or their interaction, on the pollination services they provide to field beans, either at an individual level or a whole colony level. Further, there was no impact of any treatment, in any metric, on colony development. Our results contrast with prior findings that similar insecticides (neonicotinoids) impact pollination services, and that sulfoxaflor impacts colony development, potentially suggesting that sulfoxaflor is a less harmful compound to bee health than neonicotinoids insecticides.
... 9 In particular, negative effects on pollinating insects have been studied and emphasized. [10][11][12] Thus, there is a demanding need for reducing the use of chemical pesticides in favor of alternatives such as biological control. Furthermore, if chemical control is the only option, narrow-spectrum pesticides should be preferred over broad-spectrum products. ...
Full-text available
Background: Integrated pest management (IPM) has a long history in fruit production and has become even more important with the implementation of the EU directive 2009/128/EC making IPM mandatory. In this study, we surveyed 30 apple orchards in Norway for three years (2016-2018) monitoring pest- and beneficial arthropods as well as evaluating fruit damage. We obtained growers' diaries of pest management and used these data to study positive and negative correlations of pesticides with the different arthropod groups and damage due to pests. Results: IPM level had no significant effects on damage of harvested apples by arthropod pests. Furthermore, damage by arthropods was mainly caused by lepidopteran larvae, tortricids being especially important. The number of insecticide applications varied between 0 and 3 per year (mean 0.8), while acaricide applications varied between 0 and 1 per year (mean 0.06). Applications were often based on forecasts of important pest species such as the apple fruit moth (Argyresthia conjugella). Narrow-spectrum insecticides were commonly used against aphids and lepidopteran larvae, although broad-spectrum neonicotinoid (thiacloprid) insecticides were also applied. Anthocorid bugs and phytoseiid mites were the most abundant natural enemies in the studied orchards. However, we found large differences in abundance of various "beneficials" (e.g. lacewings, anthocorids, parasitic wasps) between eastern and western Norway. A low level of IPM negatively affected the abundance of spiders. Conclusion: Lepidoptera was found to be the most important pest group in apple orchards. Insecticide use was overall low, but number of spray applications and use of broad-spectrum insecticides varied between growers and regions. IPM level did not predict the level of fruit damage by insects nor the abundance of important pests or most beneficial groups in an apple orchard. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Neonicotinoids are a class of systemic chemical compounds used, among other things, as seed coatings to control insect pests, usually of the biting-sucking type (aphids, thrips, etc.). Neonicotinoids target the central nervous system of targeted insects and can therefore potentially influence pollinator health (Henry et al. 2012;Whitehorn et al. 2013) and impact the ecosystem service of pollination (Stanley et al. 2015). Indeed, the neurotoxic molecules present can concentrate in nectar and pollen (Blacquière et al. 2012) and thus cause irreversible damage to the nervous system of exposed bees, resulting in spatial disorientation during foraging periods (Gill et al. 2012;Fischer et al. 2014;Gill and Raine 2014). ...
Full-text available
This research thesis investigated into the critical issue of declining insect populations, particularly pollinators, in the crucial context of ecosystem functioning, agriculture, and human health. Focusing on bees, hoverflies, and apoid wasps, we explore the impact of landscape degradation, caused by agricultural intensification and urbanization, on pollinator communities in temperate agricultural and urban landscapes. Four case studies are presented, offering valuable insights and recommendations for conservation and restoration efforts. The first study examined ecological diversification on two farms in early ecological transition, uncovering valuable data on wild bees and hoverflies. Results highlighted specific diversity with 101 bee species and 31 hoverfly species, indicating the potential for ecological diversification and agroecological practices to support rare and endangered pollinators. Building on this study, we investigated the impact of flower strips in intercropping systems with winter wheat. Multifloral strips attracted a diverse range of hoverflies, presenting a promising ecological and economic solution for farmers. In urban landscapes, we analyzed pollen availability and foraging behavior of honeybee colonies along an urban-rural gradient in Tokyo. Landscape factors significantly influenced floral species visited by honeybees, offering valuable insights for urban planning. Lastly, we explored the nesting potential of pavements for ground-nesting Hymenoptera in Brussels. We identify 22 species of wild bees and apoid wasps nesting in specific urban surfaces, providing essential recommendations for encouraging these pollinators. These studies underscored the significance of food and nesting resources for pollinator communities and advocated for conservation efforts in disturbed environments. Our findings contribute to the growing body of knowledge on agricultural and urban ecology, paving the way for future scientific endeavors in this crucial field.
... Such large-scale crop monocultures are usually not attractive to pollinators due to the lack of floral resources (e.g., cereals) or, in case of mass flowering crops (e.g., oilseed rape), they provide short-lived, monofloral, and thus nutritionally unbalanced nectar and pollen resources [14][15][16] . Furthermore, mass-flowering crops are usually intensively treated with pesticides 12 , which may increase pollinator mortality and could reduce their efficiency 17,18 . Pesticide residues were found both in the pollen of mass-flowering crops and in wild flowers growing in the field margins 19,20 and as many as 14 different compounds have been detected in winter Brassica napus 21 . ...
Full-text available
Pollinators in agricultural landscapes are facing global decline and the main pressures include food scarcity and pesticide usage. Intensive agricultural landscapes may provide important food resources for wild pollinators via mass flowering crops. However, these are monofloral, short-term, and may contain pesticide residues. We explored how the landscape composition with a different proportion of oilseed rape (6–65%) around Osmia bicornis nests affects floral diversity, contamination with pesticides, and energetic value of provisions collected by this species of wild bees as food for their offspring. Altogether, the bees collected pollen from 28 plant taxa (6–15 per nest) and provisions were dominated by Brassica napus (6.0–54.2%, median 44.4%, 12 nests), Quercus sp. (1.2–19.4%, median 5.2%, 12 nests), Ranunculus sp. (0.4–42.7%, median 4.7%, 12 nests), Poaceae (1.2–59.9%, median 5.8%, 11 nests) and Acer sp. (0.6–42%, median 18.0%, 8 nests). Residues of 12 pesticides were found in provisions, with acetamiprid, azoxystrobin, boscalid, and dimethoate being the most frequently detected at concentrations up to 1.2, 198.4, 16.9 and 17.8 ng/g (median 0.3, 10.6, 11.3, 4.4 ng/g), respectively. Floral diversity and energetic value of provisions, but not the Pesticide Risk Index depended on landscape structure. Moreover, pollen diversity decreased, and energetic value increased with landscape diversity. Thus, even a structurally simple landscape may provide diverse food for O. bicornis if the nest is located close to a single but resource-diverse patch. Both B. napus and non-crop pollen were correlated with pesticide concentrations.
Full-text available
Ants are key ecosystem service providers and can serve as important biological control agents in pest management. However, the effects of insecticides on common farmland ant species are poorly understood. We tested the effects of three commonly used insecticides on ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). The tested insecticides were acetamiprid (neonicotinoid; formulated as Mospilan 20 SP), deltamethrin (pyrethroid; formulated as Sanium Ultra), and sulfoxaflor (sulfilimine; formulated as Gondola). We tested two ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) species with different colony founding strategies, Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758) and Myrmica rubra (Linnaeus, 1758). We sprayed their queens with insecticides at concentrations recommended for use in foliar applications in agriculture, i.e., at 1.25 g L ⁻¹ (acetamiprid), 0.6 g L ⁻¹ (sulfoxaflor), and 0.875 g L ⁻¹ (deltamethrin). Further, we diluted the compounds in distilled water and tested them at 10%, 1%, and 0.1% of the field-recommended concentrations, and used distilled water as a control. We monitored the survival of the queens and the number of eggs laid. All three tested insecticides caused severe lethal and sublethal concentration-dependent effects. Even at concentrations three orders of magnitudes lower than recommended for field applications, significantly lower numbers of eggs were found in the queens’ nests. The extent of the sublethal effects of acetamiprid and sulfoxaflor was concentration-dependent and differed between the two ant species. Besides bees and bumblebees, ants represent an important group of hymenopterans that are severely affected even by low concentrations of the tested compounds and therefore should be included in risk assessment schemes.
For the past decade, Colony Collapse Disorder has been reported worldwide. Insecticides containing pyrethroids may be responsible for a decline in bees, which are more sensitive to pyrethroids compared with other insects. Voltage-gated sodium channels (Nav ) are the major target sites of pyrethroids, and the sodium channel diversity is generated through extensive alternative splicing and RNA editing. In this study, we cloned and analyzed the function of variants of the Nav channel, BiNav , from Bombus impatiens. BiNav covers a 46 kb genome region including 30 exons. Sequence analysis of 56 clones showed that the clones can be grouped into 22 splice types with 11 optional exons (exons j, w, p, q, r, b, e, t, l/k, and z). Here, a special alternative exon w is identified, encoding a stretch of 31 amino acid resides in domain I between S3 and S4. RNA editing generates 18 amino acid changes in different positions in individual variants. Among 56 variants examined, only six variants generated sufficient sodium currents for functional characterization in Xenopus oocytes. In the presence of B. impatiens TipE and TEH1, the sodium current amplitude of BiNav 1-1 increased by fourfold, while TipE of other insect species had no effect on the expression. Abundant alternative splicing and RNA editing of BiNav suggests the molecular and functional pharmacology diversity of the Nav channel for bumblebees. This study provides a theoretical basis for the design of insecticides that specifically target pests without affecting beneficial insects.
CuFeS2 is regarded as a promising catalyst for heterogeneous activation to remove organic contaminants in wastewater. However, effects of solvents in regulating material synthesis and catalytic activity are still not clear. Herein, we reported the role of water, ethanol, ethylene glycol (EG), glycerol, and polyethylene glycol 200 on the synthesis of CuFeS2 micro-flowers and their performance in activating persulfate (PS) to remove imidacloprid (IMI) pesticide. The results showed that the solvent had an effect on the morphology, crystallinity, yields, specific surface areas and unpaired electrons of CuFeS2 micro-flowers. The degradation experiments revealed the efficient catalytic activity of EG-mediated CuFeS2 for heterogeneous PS activation. SO4•- and •OH were identified in EG-CuFeS2/PS system and •OH (90.4%) was the dominant reactive species. Meanwhile, stable 20% of η[PMSO2] (the molar ratio of PMSO2 generation to PMSO consumption) was achieved and demonstrated that Fe(IV) was also involved in the degradation process. Moreover, S2- promoted the cycling of Fe3+/Fe2+ and Cu2+/Cu+, enhancing the synergistic activation and reusability of the catalyst. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations verified that PS was adsorbed by Fe atom and electron transfer occurred on the catalyst surface. Three possible degradation pathways of IMI were proposed by analysis of the degradation intermediates and their toxicities were evaluated by ECOSAR. This study not only provides a theoretical foundation for catalyst design, but also promotes the industrial application of bimetallic sulfide Fenton-like catalysts for water management.
Full-text available
Apple production in the UK is worth over £100 million per annum and this production is heavily dependent on insect pollination. Despite its importance, it is not clear which insect pollinators carry out the majority of this pollination. Furthermore, it is unknown whether current UK apple production, in terms of both yield and quality, suffers pollination deficits and whether production value could be increased through effective management of pollination services. The present study set out to address some of these unknowns and showed that solitary bee activity is high in orchards and that they could be making a valuable contribution to pollination. Furthermore, fruit set and apple seed number were found to be suffering potential pollination deficits although these were not reflected in apple quality. Deficits could be addressed through orchard management practices to improve the abundance and diversity of wild pollinators. Such practices include provision of additional floral resources and nesting habitats as well as preservation of semi-natural areas. The cost effectiveness of such strategies would need to be understood taking into account the potential gains to the apple industry.
A guide to using S environments to perform statistical analyses providing both an introduction to the use of S and a course in modern statistical methods. The emphasis is on presenting practical problems and full analyses of real data sets.
In recent years, an intense debate has been generated about the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoids, a group of widely-used, neurotoxic insecticides. When these systemic compounds are applied to seeds, low concentrations are subsequently found in the nectar and pollen of the crop, which are then collected and consumed by bees. Here we demonstrate that current focus on exposure to pesticides via the crop overlooks an important factor - throughout spring and summer, mixtures of neonicotinoids are also found in the pollen and nectar of wildflowers growing in arable field margins, at concentrations that are sometimes even higher than those found in the crop. Indeed the large majority (97%) of neonicotinoids brought back in pollen to honey bee hives in arable landscapes was from wildflowers, not crops. Both previous and ongoing field studies have been based on the premise that exposure to neonicotinoids would only occur during the blooming period of flowering crops and that it may be diluted by bees also foraging on untreated wildflowers. Here, we show that exposure is likely to be higher and more prolonged than currently recognized due to widespread contamination of wild plants growing near treated crops.