Brazil Roberta Nocelli, Marcia Ribeiro, Breno Freitas, Stephan Carvalho

Kenya Dino Martins, Martha Mutiso, Christopher Odhiambo, Wanja Kinuthia, Mary Gikungu, Paul Ngaruiya, Gladys Maina, Pamela Kipyab, Muo

Kasina

Netherlands Harold van der Valk, Irene Koomen, Tjeerd Blacquire, Sjef van der Steen, Ivo Roessink, Jacoba Wassenberg

FAO Barbara Gemmill-Herren

Aspects determining pesticide risks to

wild bees

Knowledge management of pesticide risks to wild pollinators for sustainable

production of high-value crops in Brazil and Kenya

GEF/UNEP/FAO Global Action on Pollination Services

Pollination experts

Bee ecologists

Risk assessors

Regulators

Objectives

Pilot study on aspects determining pesticide risks to wild bees

Elaborate risk profiles for pesticide effects on, in particular wild, bees

in selected focal crops

Identify data gaps for risk assessment

Assess to what extent risk profiles can be used to guide preliminary

risk assessment and management

Wild bees

Social (non-Apis mellifera)

(partly) managed/domesticated

wild

Solitary

wild

Methodology

Focal crops for which the survey was conducted

Brazil Kenya Netherlands

Melon Coffee Apple

Tomato Cucurbits Tomato (greenhouse)

French beans

Tomato

Methodology

Data collection

Brazil, Kenya, Netherlands

Expert consultation (pollination and crop protection experts, agronomists,

pesticide registration authority)

Literature

Kenya (additional)

Farmer surveys in three districts

Methodology

Survey on factors that may influence pesticide risk to bees

Likelihood of exposure: crop factors

Likelihood of exposure: bee biology-related factors

Pesticide use & application factors

Pesticide properties

Methodology

Possibility of exposure: crop factors

e.g.

Overlap between crop/weed flowering and pesticide application

Overlap between bee activity and pesticide application

Presence of extrafloral nectaries

Infestation with honeydew producing insects

Presence of drinking water in crop

Methodology

Possibility of exposure: bee biology-related factors

e.g.

Period of day when foraging

Time spent foraging (during day / during growing season)

Quantity of pollen/nectar collected per day

Pollen & nectar consumption

Location of nest compared to crop field

Foraging range

Methodology

Pesticide use & application factors (for all

pesticide products used in the crop)

e.g.

Pesticide a.i.

Mode of action (systemicity, IGR)

Formulation type

Mode of application

Application rate & frequency

Use of systemic pesticides in previous

rotational crop

Methodology

Pesticide properties, (for all pesticide a.i.s used in the crop)

Contact and oral LD50 adult

Oral LD50 brood

Toxicity data for honey bee, and for other bees, where available

Half-life in pollen/nectar

Half-life on plant foliage

Main pollinators/crop visitors

Brazil

Crop Important pollinator Crop visitor

Melon Apis mellifera (Africanized

honeybee)

Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees)

Frieseomelitta doederleini

(stingless bee)

Tomato Bombus spp. (bumblebees)

Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees)

Augochlora sp. (sweat bees)

Examalopsis auropilosa (long-

horned bees)

Melipona spp. (stingless bees)

Apis mellifera (Africanized

honeybee)

Main pollinators/crop visitors

Kenya

Crop Important pollinator Crop visitor

Coffee Apis mellifera (African

honeybee)

Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees)

Patelapis spp. (sweat bees)

Cucurbits Apis mellifera (African

honeybee)

Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees)

Halictidae (sweat bees)

French

beans

Apis mellifera (African

honeybee)

Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees)

Megachilidae (leafcutter bees)

Tomato Xylocopa spp. (carpenter bees)

Halictidae (sweat bees)

Apis mellifera (African

honeybee)

Main pollinators/crop visitors

Netherlands

Crop Important pollinator Crop visitor

Apple Apis mellifera (European

honeybee)

Osmia rufa (mason bee)

Bombus spp. (bumblebees)

Andrena spp. (sand bee)

Tomato Bombus terrestris (bumblebee)

Likelihood of exposure crop factors

Availability of data generally good

crop flowering periods

bee activity periods

presence of extrafloral nectaries

presence of honeydew producing insects

Data gaps

weed flowering periods

crop as source of drinking water

Likelihood of exposure crop factors

Conclusion Likelihood of exposure of wild bees based on crop factors

High: all crops but coffee

Overlap between flowering or bee activity and pesticide

applications

Some crops: presence of extrafloral nectories and/or honeydew

producing insects

Low-moderate: coffee

Pesticide applications during flowering generally avoided

But presence of honeydew producing insects

Likelihood of exposure bee biology

Availability of data moderate (some species, e.g. Bombus, Osmia, Halictidae) to poor (most species)

Data gaps

e.g.

Foraging durations (per day and per season)

Foraging ranges

Quantities of pollen/nectar collected and/or consumed

Likelihood of exposure bee biology

Halictid bee

Solitary social

Nest location: ground nests fixed

Nest location: in-field & field margin

Activity period: entire day (crepuscular)

Foraging range: 50 100 m

Forager is often reproducing female

Days spent foraging: up to 60 days per

forager

Egg laid on pollen load; no subsequent

larval feeding

Honey bee Social

Nest location: hive mobile

Nest location: outside field

Activity period: morning early afternoon

Foraging range: 1500 m (and more)

Forager is never reproducing female

Days spent foraging: up to 20 days per

forager

Royal jelly (and some pollen) progressively

fed to larvae

Example: Halictidae (sweat bees)

Influence of bee biology on exposure risk?

Pesticide use

Brazil Kenya Netherlands

Melon Tomato Cucur

-bits

Coffee French

Beans

Tomato Apple Tomato

# a.i. registered on

crop

65 133 12 10 18 20 ? ?

# a.i used on crop ? ? 32 11 20 27 57 88

# a.i. used when bees

are active

? ? 28 0 20 22 54 60

# insecticides used

when bees are active

[28] [71] 16 0 11 15 13 21

Pesticide properties

Data availability

Honeybee acute toxicity: good (e.g. EU endpoints/Footprint; USEPA

ECOTOX database; FAO database)

Honeybee larval/chronic toxicity: moderate

Bumblebee toxicity: moderate (Mommaerts & Smagghe 2011)

Other bees toxicity: very limited

Residues & half-lives in pollen/nectar or on plant surfaces: very

limited

Conclusions

Risk profile

focus cropping system

qualitative or semi-quantitative estimate of exposure

no acceptability criteria (comparative assessment)

Risk assessment (regulatory)

focus pesticide

quantitative estimate of exposure

acceptability criteria (HQ/RQ trigger)

Risk profile

In absence of risk assessment procedures for wild bees.

Risk profile can be a useful tool to:

Conduct a qualitative evaluation of pesticide risk in specific

cropping systems

Structure the discussion among researchers, regulators, farmers,

beekeepers on pesticide risks to wild bees

Identify data/information gaps

Set priorities for further research (crops, bees, pesticides)

Set priorities for risk mitigation (crops)

More information

Risk profile pilot study & methodology

Report available early 2012

Review of pesticide risk factors for major groups of wild bees

Report of special session at ICPBR Cholula Conference available in early

2012

FAO Global Action on Pollination Services http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/biodiversity/pollination/en/

Wageningen UR

Thank you! Work supported by:

Netherlands: Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & Innovation

Government of Kenya

Government of Brazil

GEF/UNEP/FAO Global Action on Pollination Services