Cargando…

Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees

1. Most insecticides are insect neurotoxins. Evidence is emerging that sublethal doses of these neurotoxins are affecting the learning and memory of both wild and managed bee colonies, exacerbating the negative effects of pesticide exposure and reducing individual foraging efficiency. 2. Variation i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siviter, Harry, Koricheva, Julia, Brown, Mark J. F., Leadbeater, Ellouise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30449899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13193
_version_ 1783368947373965312
author Siviter, Harry
Koricheva, Julia
Brown, Mark J. F.
Leadbeater, Ellouise
author_facet Siviter, Harry
Koricheva, Julia
Brown, Mark J. F.
Leadbeater, Ellouise
author_sort Siviter, Harry
collection PubMed
description 1. Most insecticides are insect neurotoxins. Evidence is emerging that sublethal doses of these neurotoxins are affecting the learning and memory of both wild and managed bee colonies, exacerbating the negative effects of pesticide exposure and reducing individual foraging efficiency. 2. Variation in methodologies and interpretation of results across studies has precluded the quantitative evaluation of these impacts that is needed to make recommendations for policy change. It is not clear whether robust effects occur under acute exposure regimes (often argued to be more field‐realistic than the chronic regimes upon which many studies are based), for field‐realistic dosages, and for pesticides other than neonicotinoids. 3. Here we use meta‐analysis to examine the impact of pesticides on bee performance in proboscis extension‐based learning assays, the paradigm most commonly used to assess learning and memory in bees. We draw together 104 (learning) and 167 (memory) estimated effect sizes across a diverse range of studies. 4. We detected significant negative effects of pesticides on learning and memory (i) at field realistic dosages, (ii) under both chronic and acute application, and (iii) for both neonicotinoid and non‐neonicotinoid pesticides groups. 5. We also expose key gaps in the literature that include a critical lack of studies on non‐Apis bees, on larval exposure (potentially one of the major exposure routes), and on performance in alternative learning paradigms. 6. Policy implications. Procedures for the registration of new pesticides within EU member states now typically require assessment of risks to pollinators if potential target crops are attractive to bees. However, our results provide robust quantitative evidence for subtle, sublethal effects, the consequences of which are unlikely to be detected within small‐scale prelicensing laboratory or field trials, but can be critical when pesticides are used at a landscape scale. Our findings highlight the need for long‐term postlicensing environmental safety monitoring as a requirement within licensing policy for plant protection products.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6221055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62210552018-11-15 Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees Siviter, Harry Koricheva, Julia Brown, Mark J. F. Leadbeater, Ellouise J Appl Ecol Pollination 1. Most insecticides are insect neurotoxins. Evidence is emerging that sublethal doses of these neurotoxins are affecting the learning and memory of both wild and managed bee colonies, exacerbating the negative effects of pesticide exposure and reducing individual foraging efficiency. 2. Variation in methodologies and interpretation of results across studies has precluded the quantitative evaluation of these impacts that is needed to make recommendations for policy change. It is not clear whether robust effects occur under acute exposure regimes (often argued to be more field‐realistic than the chronic regimes upon which many studies are based), for field‐realistic dosages, and for pesticides other than neonicotinoids. 3. Here we use meta‐analysis to examine the impact of pesticides on bee performance in proboscis extension‐based learning assays, the paradigm most commonly used to assess learning and memory in bees. We draw together 104 (learning) and 167 (memory) estimated effect sizes across a diverse range of studies. 4. We detected significant negative effects of pesticides on learning and memory (i) at field realistic dosages, (ii) under both chronic and acute application, and (iii) for both neonicotinoid and non‐neonicotinoid pesticides groups. 5. We also expose key gaps in the literature that include a critical lack of studies on non‐Apis bees, on larval exposure (potentially one of the major exposure routes), and on performance in alternative learning paradigms. 6. Policy implications. Procedures for the registration of new pesticides within EU member states now typically require assessment of risks to pollinators if potential target crops are attractive to bees. However, our results provide robust quantitative evidence for subtle, sublethal effects, the consequences of which are unlikely to be detected within small‐scale prelicensing laboratory or field trials, but can be critical when pesticides are used at a landscape scale. Our findings highlight the need for long‐term postlicensing environmental safety monitoring as a requirement within licensing policy for plant protection products. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-07-10 2018-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6221055/ /pubmed/30449899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13193 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Pollination
Siviter, Harry
Koricheva, Julia
Brown, Mark J. F.
Leadbeater, Ellouise
Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees
title Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees
title_full Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees
title_fullStr Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees
title_short Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees
title_sort quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees
topic Pollination
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30449899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13193
work_keys_str_mv AT siviterharry quantifyingtheimpactofpesticidesonlearningandmemoryinbees
AT korichevajulia quantifyingtheimpactofpesticidesonlearningandmemoryinbees
AT brownmarkjf quantifyingtheimpactofpesticidesonlearningandmemoryinbees
AT leadbeaterellouise quantifyingtheimpactofpesticidesonlearningandmemoryinbees