Andi M Kopit

Bio: Andi M Kopit is an academic researcher from Utah State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Brood & Acetamiprid. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 2 publications receiving 31 citations.

Routes of Pesticide Exposure in Solitary, Cavity-Nesting Bees

Abstract: Abstract Declines of pollinator health and their populations continue to be commercial and ecological concerns. Agricultural practices, such as the use of agrochemicals, are among factors attributed to honey bee (Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)) population losses and are also known to have negative effects on populations of managed non-Apis pollinators. Although pesticide registration routinely requires evaluation of impacts on honey bees, studies of this social species may not reveal important pesticide exposure routes where managed, solitary bees are commonly used. Studies of solitary bees offer additional bee models that are practical from the aspect of availability, known rearing protocols, and the ability to assess effects at the individual level without confounding factors associated with colony living. In addition to understanding bees, it is further important to understand how pesticide characteristics determine their environmental whereabouts and persistence. Considering our research expertise in advancing the management of solitary bees for crop pollination, this forum focuses on routes of pesticide exposure experienced by cavity-nesting bees, incorporating the relative importance of environmental contamination due to pesticide chemical behaviors. Exposure routes described are larval ingestion, adult ingestion, contact, and transovarial transmission. Published research reports of effects of several pesticides on solitary bees are reviewed to exemplify each exposure route. We highlight how certain pesticide risks are particularly important under circumstances related to the cavity nesters.

Effects of Provision Type and Pesticide Exposure on the Larval Development of Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae).

Abstract: Wild and managed bee populations are in decline, and one of many environmental causes is the impact of pesticides on developing bees. For solitary bees, delayed larval development could lead to asynchronous adult emergence, unhealthy and inefficient adult pollinators, and decreased brood production and survival. We examined a methodology for testing Osmia lignaria Say (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) larval responses to pesticide exposure using a laboratory bioassay. We created two provision types: a homogenized blend of O. lignaria provisions from an apple orchard and homogenized almond pollen pellets collected by honey bees plus sugar water. Pesticides were administered to the provisions to compare toxic effects. We recorded larval developmental durations for second-fifth instar and for fifth instar to cocoon initiation for larvae fed provisions treated with water (control) or doses of three pesticides and a representative spray-tank mixture (acetamiprid, boscalid/pyraclostrobin, dimethoate, and acetamiprid plus boscalid/pyraclostrobin). All larvae survived to cocoon initiation when only water was added to provisions. Impacts of pesticide treatments significantly differed between the apple and almond homogenates. The greatest treatment effects occurred when the homogenized almond provision was mixed with acetamiprid alone and when combined with boscalid/pyraclostrobin. Optimizing bioassays through the use of appropriate larval food for exposing solitary bee larvae to agrochemicals is crucial for assessing risks for pollinators.

Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Solitary Bees

Abstract: Current pesticide risk assessment for bees relies on a single (social) species, the western honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). However, most of the >20,000 bee species worldwide are solitary. Differences in life history traits between solitary bees (SB) and honey bees (HB) are likely to determine differences in routes and levels of pesticide exposure. The objectives of this review are to: 1) compare SB and HB life history traits relevant for risk assessment; 2) summarize current knowledge about levels of pesticide exposure for SB and HB; 3) identify knowledge gaps and research needs; 4) evaluate whether current HB risk assessment schemes cover routes and levels of exposure of SB; and 5) identify potential SB model species for risk assessment. Most SB exposure routes seem well covered by current HB risk assessment schemes. Exceptions to this are exposure routes related to nesting substrates and nesting materials used by SB. Exposure via soil is of particular concern because most SB species nest underground. Six SB species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae - Osmia bicornis L., O. cornifrons Radoszkowski, O. cornuta Latreille, O. lignaria Say, Megachile rotundata F., and Halictidae - Nomia melanderi Cockerell) are commercially available and could be used in risk assessment. Of these, only N. melanderi nests underground, and the rest are cavity-nesters. However, the three Osmia species collect soil to build their nests. Life history traits of cavity-nesting species make them particularly suitable for semifield and, to a lesser extent, field tests. Future studies should address basic biology, rearing methods and levels of exposure of ground-nesting SB species.

Impact of Biotic and Abiotic Stressors on Managed and Feral Bees

Abstract: Large-scale declines in bee abundance and species richness over the last decade have sounded an alarm, given the crucial pollination services that bees provide. Population dips have specifically been noted for both managed and feral bee species. The simultaneous increased cultivation of bee-dependent agricultural crops has given rise to additional concern. As a result, there has been a surge in scientific research investigating the potential stressors impacting bees. A group of environmental and anthropogenic stressors negatively impacting bees has been isolated. Habitat destruction has diminished the availability of bee floral resources and nest habitats, while massive monoculture plantings have limited bee access to a variety of pollens and nectars. The rapid spread and increased resistance buildup of various bee parasites, pathogens, and pests to current control methods are implicated in deteriorating bee health. Similarly, many pesticides that are widely applied on agricultural crops and within beehives are toxic to bees. The global distribution of honey bee colonies (including queens with attendant bees) and bumble bee colonies from crop to crop for pollination events has been linked with increased pathogen stress and increased competition with native bee species for limited resources. Climatic alterations have disrupted synchronous bee emergence with flower blooming and reduced the availability of diverse floral resources, leading to bee physiological adaptations. Interactions amongst multiple stressors have created colossal maladies hitting bees at one time, and in some cases delivering additive impacts. Initiatives including the development of wild flower plantings and assessment of pesticide toxicity to bees have been undertaken in efforts to ameliorate current bee declines. In this review, recent findings regarding the impact of these stressors on bees and strategies for mitigating them are discussed.

Workshop on Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-Apis Bees: Foundation and Summaries.

Abstract: Current pesticide risk assessment practices use the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., as a surrogate to characterize the likelihood of chemical exposure of a candidate pesticide for all bee species. Bees make up a diverse insect group that provides critical pollination services to both managed and wild ecosystems. Accordingly, they display a diversity of behaviors and vary greatly in their lifestyles and phenologies, such as their timing of emergence, degree of sociality, and foraging and nesting behaviors. Some of these factors may lead to disparate or variable routes of exposure when compared to honey bees. For those that possess life histories that are distinct from A. mellifera, further risk assessments may be warranted. In January 2017, 40 bee researchers, representative of regulatory agencies, academia, and agrochemical industries, gathered to discuss the current state of science on pesticide exposure to non-Apis bees and to determine how well honey bee exposure estimates, implemented by different regulatory agencies, may be protective for non-Apis bees. Workshop participants determined that although current risk assessment procedures for honey bees are largely conservative, several routes of exposure are unique to non-Apis bees and warranted further investigation. In this forum article, we discuss these key routes of exposure relevant to non-Apis bees and identify important research gaps that can help inform future bee risk assessment decisions.