The effect of Apistan® on honey bee (Apis mellifera L). Responses to methyl parathion, carbaryl and bifenthrin exposure Md Ellis, Bd Siegfried, B Spawn

To cite this version:

Md Ellis, Bd Siegfried, B Spawn. The effect of Apistan® on honey bee (Apis mellifera L). Responses to methyl parathion, carbaryl and bifenthrin exposure. Apidologie, Springer Verlag, 1997, 28 (3-4), pp.123-127. ￿hal-00891411￿

HAL Id: hal-00891411 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00891411 Submitted on 1 Jan 1997

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Original article

The effect of Apistan® on honey bee (Apis mellifera L). Responses to methyl parathion, carbaryl and bifenthrin exposure

MD Ellis BD Siegfried, B Spawn

Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska, 202 Plant Industries Building, Lincoln, NE 68583-0816, USA

(Received 5 March 1997; accepted 13 May 1997)

Summary — Honey bees treated with Apistan Queen Tabs® exhibited greater susceptibility to bifenthrin than untreated bees in laboratory bioassays. Bifenthrin was 1.9 times more toxic to bees that were caged with Apistan® Queen Tabs than to bees held in cages without Apistan®. The toxi- city of carbaryl and methyl parathion was not significantly affected by Apistan® treatment. The possibility that honey bee colonies being treated with Apistan® are more susceptible to injury by bifenthrin is supported by data obtained in this study. However, susceptibility of colonies to carbaryl or methyl parathion does not appear to be affected by prior Apistan® exposure. honey bee / synergism / fluvalinate / insecticide / toxicity

INTRODUCTION able in the US to protect colonies from var- roa is fluvalinate (Apistan®). In 1987, the varroa mite (Varroa jacobsoni Oudemans) was detected in the United In addition to Apistan® treatments States (anonymous, 1987). Subsequently, applied within the hive, bees can be exposed varroa spread to most regions of the US. to pesticides if they forage on treated crops. and many beekeepers now routinely treat If synergism exists between Apistan® and their colonies with a miticide to protect them pesticides applied to crops, colonies being from varroa injury (Mussen, 1993). At pre- treated for varroa may be more vulnerable to sent, the only miticide registered and avail- pesticide injury than untreated colonies.

* Correspondence and reprints Tel: (1) 402 472 8696; fax: (1) 402 472 4687; e-mail: mellis@ unlinfo.unl.edu There have been few studies of potential MATERIALS AND METHODS interactions when honey bees are exposed to more than one pesticide. Chaney (1988) Adult workers were collected from the brood nest of a of New World Carniolan observed no synergism when permethrin single colony honey bees in September 1995. Ten bees were and fluvalinate were mixed independently in each of 72 Benton cages for with and fed to adult bees. How- placed mailing carbaryl each of three bioassays. Apistan Queen Tabs® Belzunces et al found that ever, (1993) were placed in 36 cages and remained in posi- pyrethroids in low concentrations can tion throughout the experiment. The remaining increase the toxicity of amitrole (Azole®) 36 cages did not receive Apistan Queen Tabs®. fungicides which are normally harmless to All caged bees were held without light at 20°C honey bees. Pilling et al (1995) also reported for 48 h prior to conducting bioassays. Bees that ergosterol biosynthesis inhibiting fungi- were provided with water twice daily throughout the experiment by brushing the cage screens with cides can the of synergize toxicity pyrethroid water. insecticides to the honey bee. They sug- Serial dilutions of bifenthrin, carbaryl and gested that their observations may result methyl parathion in acetone were to indi- from the the bee’s applied pyrethroid blocking vidual bees using a Hamilton microsyringe and detoxification mechanism for the fungicide. repeating dispenser. The three insecticides tested Immaraju et al (1990) found that sesame oil represent three different insecticide classes, synergized fluvalinate toxicity to citrus pyrethroid, carbamate, and an organophosphate, thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) up to 48 respectively. Bees were anesthetized with CO2, and 0.5 of the test solutions was to fold at the suggesting the possible use μL applied LC90, their abdomens. Acetone was used as a solvent of this the field to enhance toxi- product in and controls treated with acetone were included Most combinations of miticides used city. in each bioassay. Six replications of ten bees to control varroa and other pesticides have were examined for each dose of both bees treated not been tested for synergistic effects (de with Apistan® and untreated bees. After pre- Ruijter, 1994). liminary range-finding bioassays, six dosage lev- els were selected that provided mortalities rang- ing from zero to 100 percent. Bees were held in intake and varroa infes- Inadequate pollen an incubator at 20 °C in darkness except for brief tation have also been shown to influence periods when water was administered. Mortality the susceptibility of honey bees to chemi- was evaluated 24 h after treatment. cal Wahl and Ulm demon- injury. (1983) Data were analyzed by Probit analysis using strated reduced tolerance to pesticides in POLO (LeOra Software, 1991). LD50’s with poorly nourished bees with lowered protein 95% confidence intervals that did not overlap reserves. Drescher and Schneider (1988) were considered significantly different (LeOra ratios calcu- reported a higher mortality of varroa-para- Software, 1991). All synergistic lated in this were at the 95% sitized bees when exposed to endosulfan study significant level statistics were less (Thiodan®). also demonstrated that probability (g generated They than 0.5). However, synergistic ratios were only the effect of Thiodan® was negative meaningful if the LD50’s being compared were enhanced by the synergism of coumafos significantly different. (Perizin®).

The arrival of varroa in Nebraska, and a RESULTS concomitant increase in beekeeper reports of pesticide injury prompted the following Honey bees treated with Apistan® exhib- studies. This research was conducted to ited significantly greater susceptibility to determine if synergism between pesticides bifenthrin than untreated bees in laboratory used on crops and in beehives could be a bioassays (table I). Significant differences contributing factor to honey bee losses. in methyl parathion and carbaryl toxicity were not observed in similar tests. Bifen- keepers should avoid treating colonies with thrin was 1.9 times more toxic to bees that Apistan® strips at times of the year when were caged with Apistan Queen Tabs® than bees are likely to forage on bifenthrin-treated to bees held in cages without Apistan®. The crops. Bifenthrin and fluvalinate are both calculated LD50’s for carbaryl and methyl pyrethroids and have similar modes of parathion were 1.4 and 1.1 times higher for action. untreated bees, respectively, however, the differences in relative toxicity were not sig- Furthermore, since Drescher and Schnei- nificant. der ( 1988) have demonstrated that varroa infestation can result in a lower threshold for pesticide injury, beekeepers should main- DISCUSSION tain varroa populations at low levels as well as avoiding Apistan® treatment during times Data from this study support the hypothesis when bees are likely to forage on pesticide- that honey bees being treated with Apistan® treated crops. During the spring in Mid- are more susceptible to injury by bifenthrin. western agriculture, Apistan® treatments Data reported in this study do not support can be made with little risk of concomitant the hypothesis that Apistan® treatment bee exposure to crop pest control chemi- affects the susceptibility of colonies to car- cals. Spring treatments are also compati- baryl or methyl parathion injury. However, ble with beekeeping management practices the most important result is that Apistan® and with beekeeper’s need to have low mite did not have a large effect on toxicity for populations (Ellis and Baxendale, 1996). any of the three compounds tested. Even Beekeepers relying on late-summer appli- though the effect of bifenthrin was signifi- cations of Apistan® can have both high mite cant, the difference was small, and it would levels and the presence of a pesticide in the be difficult to extrapolate to field condi- hive (Apistan®) during the main crop pests tions. Nevertheless, as a precaution, bee- control period. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS une exposition préalable à l’Apistan®. La bifenthrine a été 1,9 fois plus toxique pour The authors thank Elf Atochem for their support les abeilles traitées que pour les non trai- of this study. tées. Les DL50 calculées pour le carbaryl et le parathion-méthyl sont respectivement 1,4 et 1,1 fois plus élevées pour les abeilles non Résumé — Action de l’Apistan® sur les traitées, mais les différences ne sont pas réactions des abeilles (Apis mellifera L) significatives. Le résultat le plus intéressant exposées au parathion-méthyl, au carba- est que l’Apistan® n’a eu d’action impor- ryl et à la bifenthrine. Cette étude visait à tante sur la toxicité d’aucun des trois insec- déterminer si le traitement à l’Apistan® aug- ticides testés. Même si l’effet concernant la mentait la vulnérabilité des abeilles à trois bifenthrine est significatif, la différence est insecticides, utilisés couramment en pro- faible et il est difficile d’extrapoler aux tection des cultures. Les tests biologiques conditions de plein champ. Néanmoins, par ont été faits sur 720 abeilles adultes préle- précaution, les apiculteurs devraient éviter de vées dans une même colonie pour chacun traiter leurs colonies à l’Apistan® pendant des trois insecticides étudiés. Les abeilles les périodes où les abeilles sont susceptibles ont été placées dans des cages d’expédition de butiner des cultures traitées à la bifen- de Benton à raison de dix abeilles par cage. thrine. Les cages ont été divisées en deux groupes: une moitié a reçu les inserts Apistan Queen Apis mellifera / fluvalinate / synergie / Tabs®, l’autre n’a pas été traitée. Des dilu- insecticide / toxicité tions en série de bifenthrine (pyréthrinoïde), de carbaryl (carbamate) et de parathion- méthyl (organophosphoré) ont été adminis- Zusammenfassung — Auswirkung von trées aux abeilles avec une micro-seringue Apistan® auf toxische Wirkungen der Hamilton, à raison de de 0,5 μL par abeille. Pflanzenschutzmittel Methylparathion, L’acétone a été utilisée comme solvant et Carbaryl und Bifenthrin auf Honigbie- des témoins traités à l’acétone ont été inclus nen. Honigbienen, die mit Apistan® Queen dans chaque test. Six répétitions de dix Tabs behandelt wurden, zeigten in Labor- abeilles ont été faites pour chacune des doses versuchen gegenüber Bifenthrin eine größere d’insecticide pour le lot traité à l’Apistan® et Empfindlichkeit als unbehandelte Bienen autant pour le lot non traité. La mortalité a (Tabelle 1). Die Toxizität von Carbaryl und été évaluée 24 h après le traitement, les don- Methylparathion wurde durch die Apistan- nées ont été analysées par la méthode Probit behandlung nicht signifikant beeinflußt. à l’aide du logiciel POLO. Les DL50 avec Nach den Ergebnissen dieser Untersuchung des intervalles de confiance qui ne se che- ist es wahrscheinlich, daß mit Apistan® vauchent pas ont été considérées comme behandelte Bienenvölker leichter durch significativement différentes. Tous les taux Bifenthrin geschädigt werden können. Dage- de synergie ont été significatifs au seuil de gen scheint die Empfindlichket der Völker probabilité de 95 % ; néanmoins, ils auf Carbaryl oder Methylparathion nicht n’avaient de valeur que si les DL50 compa- durch eine vorherige Apistanbehandlung rées étaient significativement différentes. beinflußt zu sein. Bifenthrin war für mit Les abeilles traitées à l’Apistan® ont montré Apistan® Queen Tabs gekäfigte Bienen 1,9 une sensibilité plus grande à la bifenthrine mal mehr toxisch als für Bienen, die in Käfi- que les non traitées (tableau I). Mais la sen- gen ohne Apistan® gehalten wurden. Die sibilité des colonies au carbaryl et au para- berechneten LD50 Werte für Carbaryl und thion-méthyl ne semble pas être affectée par Methylparathion waren bei unbehandelten Bienen 1,4 bzw 1,1 mal höher, diese Unter- Belzunces LP, Garin S, Colin ME (1993) A conve- nient method for schiede waren nicht Das biological evidencing synergies jedoch signifikant. between pesticides and bees: effects of pyrethroid wichtigste Ergebnis ist jedoch, daß die Wir- insecticides and azole fungicides applied at sub- kung von Apistan® auf die Toxizität bei den lethal doses. In: Proc 5th int symposium on the haz- ards to bees 3 getesteten Substanzen nur gering war. of pesticides (Harrison EG, ed) Wageningen, The Netherlands, 70-75 Auch wenn der Effekt von Bifenthren sig- WE The nifikant war, war die Differenz klein und es Chaney (1988) effect of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides on honey bees in Indiana: laboratory würde sie auf Feldbe- schwierig werden, studies and a survey of beekeepers and pesticide dingungen zu übertragen. Trotzdem sollten applicators. Thesis, Purdue University, West USA Imker aus Vorsorge vermeiden, Völker zu Lafayette, IN, den Zeiten mit Apistanstreifen zu behan- Drescher W, Schneider P (1988) The effect of the var- roa mite the fat of worker bees and their deln, zu denen sie auf mit upon body möglicherweise tolerance of In: Bees Bifenthrin behandelte pesticides. Africanized Honey Pflanzungen fliegen. and Mites (Needham GR et al, eds). E Horwood, Bei der Landwirtschaft des Mittelwestens New York, USA, 452-456 der USA kann die der Apistanbehandlung Ellis MD, Baxendale FP (1996) Managing varroa in Bienen im Frühling mit nur geringem Risiko the Midwest. University of Nebraska, USA, Exten- der gleichzeitigen Exposition durch der sion Publication G96-1302-A Pflanzenschutzmittel durchgeführt werden. Immaraju JA, Morse JG, Gaston LK (1990) Mecha- im sind mit der nisms of organophosphate, pyrethroid, and DDT Behandlungen Frühling resistance in citrus thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripi- Imkerpraxis und mit dem Anspruch der dae). J Econ Entomol 83, 1723-1732 Imker auf eine geringe Milbenpopulation LeOra Software (1991) POLO-PC: A User’s Guide gut zu vereinbaren (Ellis und Baxendale to prohit or logit analysis. LeOra Software, Berkley. 1996). Imker, die sich auf die Spätsommer- California, USA behandlung mit Apistan® verlassen, riskie- Mussen E (1993) Keeping varroa under control. From ren zusätzlich zu einem hohen Milbenbe- the UC apiaries. Sept/Oct issue of the University of fall die Belastung durch ein Pestizid California (Davis) Apiary extension bulletin (Apistan®) im Stock während der Haupt- Pilling ED, Bromley-Challenor KAC, Walker CH, Jep- zeit der Pflanzenschutzmaßnahmen. son PC (1995) Mechanisms of synergism between the pyrethroid insecticide-Cyhalothrin and the imi- dazole fungicide Prochloraz, in the honey bee (Apis Honigbiene / Apistan® / Synergie (Zusam- mellifera L). Pestic Biochem Physiol 51, 1-11 menwirken) / Fluvalinat de Ruijter A (1994) Issues in the control of varroa infestation. In: New Perspectives on varroa (Math- eson A, ed) Int Bee Research Assoc, Cardiff, UK, 24-26 REFERENCES Wahl O, Ulm K (1983) Influence of pollen feeding and physiological condition on pesticide sensitivity Anonymous (1987) Varroa mites found in the United of the honey bee, Apis mellifera carnica. Oecologia States. Am Bee J 127, 745-746 59, 106-128