A review of the potential impacts of coastal mosquito control programs on Australian Stingless Bees (Apidae, Meliponini)-likely exposure pathways and lessons learned from studies on honey bees.

IF 1.8 3区 农林科学 Q2 ENTOMOLOGY
Brian J Johnson, James P Hereward, Rachele Wilson, Michael J Furlong, Gregor J Devine
{"title":"A review of the potential impacts of coastal mosquito control programs on Australian Stingless Bees (Apidae, Meliponini)-likely exposure pathways and lessons learned from studies on honey bees.","authors":"Brian J Johnson, James P Hereward, Rachele Wilson, Michael J Furlong, Gregor J Devine","doi":"10.1093/ee/nvae080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The impact of the programmatic use of larvicides for mosquito control on native stingless bees (e.g., Apidae, Meliponini) is a growing concern in Australia due to heightened conservation awareness and the growth of hobbyist stingless bee keeping. In Australia, the two most widely used mosquito larvicides are the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti) and the insect hormone mimic methoprene (as S-methoprene). Each has a unique mode of action that could present a risk to stingless bees and other pollinators. Herein, we review the potential impacts of these larvicides on native Australian bees and conclude that their influence is mitigated by their low recommended field rates, poor environmental persistence, and the seasonal and intermittent nature of mosquito control applications. Moreover, evidence suggests that stingless bees may display a high physiological tolerance to Bti similar to that observed in honey bees (Apis mellifera), whose interactions with B. thuringiensis-based biopesticides are widely reported. In summary, neither Bti or methoprene is likely to pose a significant risk to the health of stingless bees or their nests. However, current knowledge is limited by regulatory testing requirements that only require the use of honey bees as toxicological models. To bridge this gap, we suggest that regulatory testing is expanded to include stingless bees and other nontarget insects. This is imperative for improving our understanding of the potential risks that these and other pesticides may pose to native pollinator conservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11751,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Entomology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Entomology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvae080","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENTOMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The impact of the programmatic use of larvicides for mosquito control on native stingless bees (e.g., Apidae, Meliponini) is a growing concern in Australia due to heightened conservation awareness and the growth of hobbyist stingless bee keeping. In Australia, the two most widely used mosquito larvicides are the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti) and the insect hormone mimic methoprene (as S-methoprene). Each has a unique mode of action that could present a risk to stingless bees and other pollinators. Herein, we review the potential impacts of these larvicides on native Australian bees and conclude that their influence is mitigated by their low recommended field rates, poor environmental persistence, and the seasonal and intermittent nature of mosquito control applications. Moreover, evidence suggests that stingless bees may display a high physiological tolerance to Bti similar to that observed in honey bees (Apis mellifera), whose interactions with B. thuringiensis-based biopesticides are widely reported. In summary, neither Bti or methoprene is likely to pose a significant risk to the health of stingless bees or their nests. However, current knowledge is limited by regulatory testing requirements that only require the use of honey bees as toxicological models. To bridge this gap, we suggest that regulatory testing is expanded to include stingless bees and other nontarget insects. This is imperative for improving our understanding of the potential risks that these and other pesticides may pose to native pollinator conservation.

沿海蚊虫控制计划对澳大利亚无刺蜜蜂(Apidae, Meliponini)的潜在影响综述--可能的接触途径以及从蜜蜂研究中吸取的经验教训。
在澳大利亚,由于保护意识的提高和业余无刺蜂饲养的增长,有计划地使用杀幼虫剂来控制蚊虫对本地无刺蜂(例如,Apidae, Meliponini)的影响日益受到关注。在澳大利亚,最广泛使用的两种灭蚊幼虫剂是苏云金杆菌变种(Bti)和昆虫激素模拟物甲氧苄啶(S-methoprene)。每种杀虫剂都有其独特的作用模式,可能会对无刺蜜蜂和其他授粉者造成危害。在此,我们回顾了这些杀幼虫剂对澳大利亚本地蜜蜂的潜在影响,并得出结论:由于这些杀幼虫剂的推荐田间使用率低、环境持久性差以及灭蚊应用的季节性和间歇性,它们的影响有所减轻。此外,有证据表明,无刺蜂对 Bti 的生理耐受性可能很高,类似于蜜蜂(Apis mellifera)的生理耐受性,蜜蜂与苏云金芽孢杆菌生物杀虫剂的相互作用已被广泛报道。总之,Bti 或甲氧苄啶都不会对无刺蜜蜂的健康或其巢穴造成重大风险。然而,由于监管测试要求仅要求使用蜜蜂作为毒理学模型,目前的知识受到了限制。为了弥补这一差距,我们建议扩大监管测试范围,将无刺蜜蜂和其他非目标昆虫包括在内。这对于提高我们对这些农药和其他农药可能对本地传粉昆虫保护造成的潜在风险的认识至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Entomology
Environmental Entomology 生物-昆虫学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
97
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Environmental Entomology is published bimonthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December. The journal publishes reports on the interaction of insects with the biological, chemical, and physical aspects of their environment. In addition to research papers, Environmental Entomology publishes Reviews, interpretive articles in a Forum section, and Letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信