Potential surrogate plants for use in semi-field pesticide risk assessment with

Non-apis Risk assessment Semi-field Solitary bee

Journal

PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 06 06 2018
accepted: 12 12 2018
entrez: 29 1 2019
pubmed: 29 1 2019
medline: 29 1 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Current regulatory pesticide risk assessments for bees are based primarily on the honey bee ( We compared ALB foraging activity and reproduction on 12 m Although ALB foraging activity was high on buckwheat plots, fewer adults were produced compared to alfalfa plots. On alfalfa, there were no differences in foraging activity, nesting, or reproduction between the low and high release rates. ALB readily foraged from purple tansy flowers, but females avoided purple tansy leaves for leaf cell construction. Our study suggests that buckwheat alone cannot support ALB during semi-field studies on small plots. For alfalfa, we recommend a maximum release rate of 10♀/20♂ in 12 m

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Current regulatory pesticide risk assessments for bees are based primarily on the honey bee (
METHODS METHODS
We compared ALB foraging activity and reproduction on 12 m
RESULTS RESULTS
Although ALB foraging activity was high on buckwheat plots, fewer adults were produced compared to alfalfa plots. On alfalfa, there were no differences in foraging activity, nesting, or reproduction between the low and high release rates. ALB readily foraged from purple tansy flowers, but females avoided purple tansy leaves for leaf cell construction.
DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that buckwheat alone cannot support ALB during semi-field studies on small plots. For alfalfa, we recommend a maximum release rate of 10♀/20♂ in 12 m

Identifiants

pubmed: 30687587
doi: 10.7717/peerj.6278
pii: 6278
pmc: PMC6340348
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e6278

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Références

Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 9;7(1):15132
pubmed: 29123189
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 14;10(8):e0135688
pubmed: 26274401
Nature. 2015 May 7;521(7550):77-80
pubmed: 25901681
Environ Entomol. 2010 Feb;39(1):149-58
pubmed: 20146851
Nat Commun. 2015 Jun 16;6:7414
pubmed: 26079893
EFSA J. 2023 May 11;21(5):e07989
pubmed: 37179655
Annu Rev Entomol. 2011;56:221-37
pubmed: 20809804
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jan 11;108(2):662-7
pubmed: 21199943
Nat Commun. 2016 Aug 16;7:12459
pubmed: 27529661
J Econ Entomol. 2009 Feb;102(1):177-82
pubmed: 19253634
Pest Manag Sci. 2017 Jan;73(1):153-159
pubmed: 27405042
Ecotoxicology. 2014 Apr;23(3):324-34
pubmed: 24435220
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Jun;25(6):345-53
pubmed: 20188434
PeerJ. 2016 Jul 14;4:e2228
pubmed: 27478712

Auteurs

Andrew J Frewin (AJ)

School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Angela E Gradish (AE)

School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Graham R Ansell (GR)

School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Cynthia D Scott-Dupree (CD)

School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Classifications MeSH