Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Neonicotinoid exposure affects foraging, nesting, and reproductive success of ground-nesting solitary bees

View ORCID ProfileD. Susan Willis Chan, View ORCID ProfileNigel E. Raine
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.07.330605
D. Susan Willis Chan
1School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for D. Susan Willis Chan
  • For correspondence: dchan05@uoguelph.ca
Nigel E. Raine
1School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nigel E. Raine
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Despite their indispensable role in food production1,2, insect pollinators are threatened by multiple environmental stressors, including pesticide exposure2-4. Although honeybees are important, most pollinating insect species are wild, solitary, ground-nesting bees1,4-6 that are inadequately represented by honeybee-centric regulatory pesticide risk assessment frameworks7,8. Here, for the first time, we evaluate the effects of realistic exposure to systemic insecticides (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam or chlorantraniliprole) on a ground-nesting bee species in a semi-field experiment. Hoary squash bees (Eucera (Peponapis) pruinosa) provide essential pollination services to North American pumpkin and squash crops9-14 and commonly nest within cropping areas10, placing them at risk of exposure to pesticides in soil8,10, nectar and pollen15,16. Hoary squash bees exposed to an imidacloprid-treated crop initiated 85% fewer nests, left 84% more pollen unharvested, and produced 89% fewer offspring than untreated controls. We found no measurable impact on squash bees from exposure to thiamethoxam- or chlorantraniliprole-treated crops. Our results demonstrate important sublethal effects of field-realistic exposure to a soil-applied neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) on the behaviour and reproductive success of a ground-nesting solitary bee. To prevent potential declines in ground-nesting bee populations and associated impoverishment of crop pollination services, soil must be considered a possible route of pesticide exposure for bees, and restrictions on soil-applied insecticides may be justified.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Footnotes

  • Email: nraine{at}uoguelph.ca

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 08, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Neonicotinoid exposure affects foraging, nesting, and reproductive success of ground-nesting solitary bees
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Neonicotinoid exposure affects foraging, nesting, and reproductive success of ground-nesting solitary bees
D. Susan Willis Chan, Nigel E. Raine
bioRxiv 2020.10.07.330605; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.07.330605
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Neonicotinoid exposure affects foraging, nesting, and reproductive success of ground-nesting solitary bees
D. Susan Willis Chan, Nigel E. Raine
bioRxiv 2020.10.07.330605; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.07.330605

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Ecology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3586)
  • Biochemistry (7545)
  • Bioengineering (5495)
  • Bioinformatics (20729)
  • Biophysics (10294)
  • Cancer Biology (7950)
  • Cell Biology (11610)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6586)
  • Ecology (10166)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13578)
  • Genetics (9520)
  • Genomics (12817)
  • Immunology (7905)
  • Microbiology (19503)
  • Molecular Biology (7641)
  • Neuroscience (41981)
  • Paleontology (307)
  • Pathology (1254)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2192)
  • Physiology (3259)
  • Plant Biology (7018)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1293)
  • Synthetic Biology (1947)
  • Systems Biology (5418)
  • Zoology (1113)