Nr. 462 (2018): Hazards of pesticides to bees 13th International Symposium of the ICP-PR Bee Protection Group 18. - 20. October 2017, València (Spain) - Proceedings -

Pieter A. Oomen, Jens Pistorius (Editors)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5073/jka.2018.462.000

Veröffentlicht: 2018-07-27

Artikel

Preface

Chris Cutler, Peter G. Kevan

3
- PDF (English)
Statement about the mission and role of the ICPPR Bee Protection Group

ICPPR Bee Protection Group, Steering Committee

4-5
- PDF (English)
About the 13th ICPPR Symposium of the Bee Protection Group in Valencia

Pieter A. Oomen

6-7
- PDF (English)
Working Groups of the ICP-PR Bee Protection Group – Developments and Progress

Thomas Steeger

8-10
- PDF (English)
Table of contents

- -

11-17
- PDF (English)

Section 1 - Risk Assessment

1.2 Three cardinal numbers to safeguard bees against pesticide exposure: LD₅₀ , NOEC (revised) and the Haber exponent.

James E. Cresswell

18-24
- PDF (English)
1.9 Analysis and Conclusions from USEPA’s Neonicotinoid Preliminary Bee Risk Assessments

Keith Sappington, Ryan Mroz, Kris Garber, Amy Blankinship, Michael Wagman, Frank Farrugia, Chris Koper, justin Housenger

46
- PDF (English)
1.10 Quantifying Sources of Variability in Neonicotinoid Residue Data for Assessing Risks to Pollinators

Keith Sappington, Ryan Mroz, Kris Garber, Frank Farruggia, Michael Wagman, Amy Blankinship, Chris Koper

46-54
- PDF (English)
1.11 Challenges to develop risk assessment schemes for Brazilian bees: multiple exposure routes

Roberta C. F. Nocelli, Karina de Oliveira Cham, Osmar Malaspina

55
- PDF (English)
1.12 Selection matrix for Brazilian bee species to risk assessment of pesticides

Flavia Viana-Silva, Carmen Pires, Karoline Torezani, Leandro Borges, Karina Cham, Christiane Dias, Ivan Teixeira, Carlos Tonelli, Ceres Belchior, Cayssa Marcondes, Roberta Nocelli, Osmar Malaspina, Ana Cione, Andreia shiva, Andreia Ferraz
- PDF (English)
1.13 Using respiratory physiology techniques in assessments of pesticide effects

Reet Karise, Risto Raimets, Gerit Dreyersdorff, Marika Mänd
- PDF (English)
1.14 New working group – Testing side effects of microbials

Shannon Borges, Emily McVey, Jacoba Wassenberg

66
- PDF (English)
1.15 Sub-lethal effects at stake: Does the acaricide Coumaphos and fungicide Folpet affect the hypopharyngeal glands size?

Marion Risse, Benjamin Dainat, Lukas Jeker

67-68
- PDF (English)
1.17 Comparison of Control and Toxic Reference Data between Honey Bee Laboratory Studies Conducted in Germany and in Spain over the Last Decade

Emmanuelle Vergé, Tommaso Ansaloni, Anna Maria Solitor, Sophia Oberrauch, Annette Kling

72-76
- PDF (English)
1.18 Linking protection goals to trigger values using compound specific properties: Chronic risks to bees

Mark Miles, Zhenglei Gao, Thomas Preuss

77-81
- PDF (English)
1.19 Questionable suitability of OECD 237 protocol in risk assessment scheme?

R. Sabo, M. Staroň, A. Sobekova, L. Sabova, J. Legáth, P. Javorsky

82-85
- PDF (English)
1.20 OECD GD 239 Honey bee larvae in vitro testing and solvents: on the job training

Stefan Kimmel, Magdaléna Cornement

86
- PDF (English)
1.21 Improving pesticide regulation by use of impact analyses: A case study for bees

Mark Miles, Anne Alix, Roland Becker, Mike Coulson, Axel Dinter, Laurent Oger, Ed Pilling, Amanda Sharples, Gabe Weyman

86-90
- PDF (English)
1.22 Weight differences of honey bees after administration of sublethal doses of dimethoate

Annette Kling, Stephan Schmitzer
- PDF (English)
1.16 Sensitivity of honey bee larvae to plant protection products and impact of EFSA bee guidance document

Roland Becker, Johannes Lückmann, Mark Miles, Anne Alix, Gabe Weyman, Ed Pilling, Natalie Ruddle, Axel Dinter, Amanda Sharples, Stephanie Fritz, Laurent Oger

69-71
- PDF
1.8 Lethal and sublethal effects of several formulations of azadirachtin on IPM Impact R&D colonies of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Guido Sterk, Julie Cuylaerts, Paraskevi Kolokytha

39-45
- PDF (English)
1.7 Pristine™ fungicide does not pose a hazard to bumble bees in lowbush blueberry production

G. Christopher Cutler, Jason M. Sproule

38
- PDF (English)
1.6 Simple modelling approaches to refine exposure for bee risk assessment based on worst case assumptions

Mark Miles, Zhenglei Gao, Thomas Preuss

38
- PDF (English)
1.5 Distribution of residues of neonicotinoids in the hive and in bees in relation to bee health

John Purdy

32-37
- PDF (English)
1.4 Honey bee nectar foragers feeding themselves and the colony: a review in support of dietary exposure assessment

Sara Rodney, John Purdy

25-31
- PDF (English)
1.3 New industry research and approaches that could help to improve the risk assessment on bees

Mark Miles, Anne Alix, Roland becker, Natalie Ruddle, Axel Dinter, Laurent Oger, Ed Pilling, Amanda Sharples, Gabe Weyman

25
- PDF (English)
1.1 Estimating honeybee forager background mortality: a case study in the Netherlands

Ivo Roessink, Sjef van der Steen, Dick Belgers, Hans Baveco, Andreas Focks, Jos Boesten

18
- PDF (English)

Section 2 - Testing effects on honey bee brood

2.1 Detailed brood evaluation under field conditions: advantages and disadvantages

Roland Becker, Johannes Lückmann

95-98
- PDF (English)
2.2 Validation of the 22-day Honey Bee Larval Toxicity, Repeated (Chronic) Exposure Study Design

Daniel Schmehl, Silvia Hinarejos, Jamie Ellis, Stephen Clarke

99-103
- PDF (English)
2.3 From field to food – Will pesticide contaminated pollen diet lead to a contamination of larval food?

Franziska Böhme, Gabriela Bischoff, Klaus Wallner

103
- PDF (English)
2.4 Reference data project 2014 – 2015 for the assessment of control data

Martina Janke, Dorothee J. Lüken, Werner von der Ohe
- PDF (English)
2.5 The acute and chronic Oomen feeding test – adapted methods and further options

Johannes Lückmann, Stephan Schmitzer

108
- PDF (English)

Section 3 - Semi-field and field testing methodologies

3.1 Which endpoints can reliably be assessed in semi-field and field pollinator species testing without estimating false positive or false negative? MDD’s and replicates issue

Marco Candolfi, Holger Bargen, Sigrun Bocksch, Olaf Klein, Silvio Knaebe, Bronislawa Szczesniak

109
- PDF (English)
3.2 Current status of the Oomen feeding test – modifications of the method to current needs

Johannes Lückmann, Stephan Schmitzer

110
- PDF (English)
3.3 ICP-PR Bee Brood Working Group – Variability of brood termination rates in reference to validity criteria and limited effectiveness of method improvement in honeybee semi-field studies (OECD GD 75)

Bronislawa Szczesniak, Ed Pilling, Sigrun Bocksch, Roland Becker, Johannes Lückmann

111-115
- PDF (English)
3.4 Thiamethoxam Honey Bee Large Scale Colony Feeding Study – Design and Interpretation

Natalie Ruddle, Charlotte Elston, Helen Thompsom, Jay Overmyer, Max Feken, Sigrun Bocksch, Marcus Hill

116
- PDF (English)
3.5 The homing flight ring test: method for the assessment of sublethal doses of plant protection products on the honey bee in field conditions

J. Fourrier, A. Rouzes, C. Monchanin, L. Dubuisson, D. Fortini, P. Aupinel, S. Grateau, C. Vidau, C. Chevallereau, M. Henry, A. Decourtye

117
- PDF (English)
3.6 Non-uniform distribution of treated sucrose solution via trophallaxis by honeybees affects homing success variability and mortality

Severin Zumbrunn, Matthieu Guichard, Lukas Jeker

117-120
- PDF (English)
3.7 Set-up of tunnel trials: Importance of technical background for the outcome of a study

Gundula Gonsior, Heike Gätschenberger, Annette Vallon, Bronislawa Szczesniak

121-122
- PDF (English)
3.8 ‘Focal species’ – can this well-known concept in higher-tier risk assessments be an appropriate approach for solitary bees?

Johannes Lückmann, Michael Faupel, Jan-Dieter Ludwigs

122-125
- PDF (English)
3.9 Semi-field testing of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis (L., 1758) (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae) in flowering Phacelia tanacetifolia – Chances, improvements and limitations

Johannes Lückmann, Christian Claßen, Oliver Mayer, Oliver Jakoby

126-131
- PDF (English)
3.10 Bumble bee semi-field studies: choice and management of colonies to reduce variability in assessment endpoints

O. Klein, L. Franke, J. Fricke, J. Sorli, S. Knaebe

132-134
- PDF (English)
3.11 Bumble bee queen production in semi-field studies: assessment of endpoints and challenges

L. Franke, O. Klein, J. Fricke, J. Sorli, S. Knaebe

134-136
- PDF (English)
3.12 Comparative chronic toxicity of three neonicotinoids on New Zealand packaged honey bees

Sarah C. Wood, Ivanna V. Kozii, Roman V. Kozly, tasha Epp, Elemir Simko

137
- PDF (English)
3.13 Tank mixtures of insecticides and fungicides, adjuvants, additives, fertilizers and their effects on honey bees after contact exposure in a spray chamber

Anna Wernecke, Malte Frommberger, Abdulrahim Alkassab, Jakob H. Eckert, Ina P. Wirtz, Jens Pistorius

137-141
- PDF (English)

Section 4 - Testing methodologies for non-Apis bees

4.1 Progress of working group Non-Apis testing

Nicole Hanewald, Nina Exeler, Olaf Klein, Silvio Knaebe, Roberta Nocelli, Thaisa Roat, Sjef van der Steen

142
- PDF (English)
4.2 Summary of an ICPPR Non-Apis workshop – Subgroup higher tier (bumble bees and solitary bees) with recommendations for a semi-field experimental design

Silvio Knaebe, Annika Alscher, Christian Classen, Nina Exeler, Lea Franke, Julian Fricke, Malte Frommberger, Juan Sorli Guerola, Sabine Hecht-Rost, Stefan Kimmel, Olaf Klein, Johannes Lückmann, Claire Molitor, Britta Peters, Christof Schneider

142-145
- PDF (English)
4.4 Technical Innovations In Bumble Bee Semi-Field and Field Tests

Matthew Allan

146-152
- PDF (English)
4.5 Including Bombus impatiens in the mix: Developing semi-field pesticide risk assessment methodology for the North American surrogate bumble bee

Cynthia Scott-Dupree, Angela E. Gradish, Tara Coletti, Chris Cutler

153-157
- PDF (English)
4.6 A method for a solitary bee (Osmia sp.) first tier acute contact and oral laboratory test: an update

Ivo Roessink, Nicole Hanewald, Christoph Schneider, Nina Exeler, Alexander Schnurr, Anna-Maria Molitor, Eugenia Soler, Stefan Kimmel, Claire Molitor, Guy Smagghe, Sjef van der Steen
- PDF (English)
4.7 Oral toxicity test with solitary bees: Experiences on the acute feeding test

Bettina Hodapp, Stefan Kimmel

158-160
- PDF (English)
4.8 Field exposure study: handling three different pollinator species and several matrices of residue analysis

Stefan Kimmel, Stefan Höger

160-164
- PDF (English)
4.9 Exposure by nesting material? – Investigation of potentially suitable methods for higher tier studies with solitary bees

Tobias Jütte, Charlotte Steinigeweg, Jens Pistorius

164-169
- PDF (English)
4.10 A review of available bumble bee colony end-points and identification of current knowledge gaps

M. Sultan, N. Exeler, M. T. Almanza, . R. Cabrera, G. Sterk

170
- PDF (English)
4.11 Non-Apis (Bombus terrestris) versus honeybee (Apis mellifera) acute oral and contact sensitivity – Preliminary results of ECPA company data evaluation

Axel Dinter, Anne Alix, Roland Becker, Peter Campbell, Mark Miles, Ed Pilling, Natalie Ruddle, Amanda Sharples, Gabe Weyman, Laurent Oger

170-172
- PDF (English)
4.12 Impact of pesticide residue on Japanese Orchard Bees (Osmia cornifrons) development and mortality

Ngoc Phan, Ed Rajotte, David Biddinger

172-175
- PDF (English)
4.13 Synergistic effects between variety of insecticides and an EBI fungicide combinations on bumble bees (Bombus terrestris L.)

Risto Raimets, Marika Mänd, James E. Cresswell

176
- PDF (English)
4.14 Developing methods for field experiments using commercially reared bumblebee colonies – initial colony strength and experimental duration as influential factors

Anke C. Dietzsch, Malte Frommberger, Jens Pistorius

176-179
- PDF (English)
4.3 An international workshop on pesticide exposure assessment for non-Apis bees

Silvia Hinarejos, Richard Bireley, Jordi Bosch, Natalie Boyle, Wayne Hou, Theresa Pitts-Singer, Rajwinder Singh, Thomas Steeger, Neil Williams
- PDF (English)

Section 5 - Monitoring

5.1 Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin dressed OSR seeds on pollinating insects in Northern Germany: Effects on large earth bumblebees (Bombus terrestris)

Guido Sterk, Britta Peters, zhenglei Gao, Ulrich Zumkier

180
- PDF (English)
5.2 27 Year polderen about bees and pesticides in the Netherlands; working group Pollinating insects, pesticides and biocides

J. J. M. van der Steen

180
- PDF (English)
5.3 Honey bee poisoning incidents in Germany

Jens Pistorius, David Thorbahn, Gabriela Bischoff

181-182
- PDF (English)
5.4 The U.S. National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators and the Role of MP3s

Thomas Steeger

183-185
- PDF (English)
5.5 Pesticide and Metabolites Residues in Honeybees: A 2014-2017 Greek Compendium

Konstantinos M. Kasiotis, Kyriaki Machera
- PDF (English)
5.7 Neonicotinoids & Pollinators: Indian Perspective

Raj Thakur, K. Kumaranag, Uzma Manzoor, P. Chakrabarthy

193
- PDF (English)
5.6 Residues in bee-relevant matrices

Peter Trodtfeld, Reinhard Friessleben, Christian Maus

189-193
- PDF (English)
5.8 Results of a monitoring program of pesticide residues in Beebread in Spain. Using Toxic unit approach to identify scenarios of risk for management programs

Elena Alonso Prados, Raquel Martin Hernandez, Mariano Higes Pascual

194
- PDF (English)
5.9 Residues of plant protection products in honey – pilot study for a method to define maximum residue levels in honey (MRLs)

Sabine Hecht-Rost, Annika Alscher, Gaby Oswald, Anne Sagner, Klaus Wallner

194-195
- PDF (English)
5.10 How do Regulatory Requirements and Assumptions Correlate to Practical Experience in Residue Studies with Nectar and Pollen?

Silvio Knaebe, Pierre Mack, Andreas Appeltauer, Annette Kling

196-198
- PDF (English)
5.11 A research about different residues in pollen and honey samples

Dorothee J. Lüken, Werner von der Ohe

198-202
- PDF (English)

List of participants

6.1 List of participants

- -

203-213
- PDF (English)

Authors

Authors

- -

214-216
- PDF (English)

Heft

Julius-Kühn-Archiv 462

216 Seiten
- PDF (English)