couple of years ago, I wrote a piece about bees and Varroa, specifically
raising the question of whether or not neonicotinoids hinder the insects
ability to groom away, and deal with Varroa mites. (see the block below for further information).
An interesting presentation here proposes how the general weakening of a honey bee colony due to pesticide exposure, ultimately favours Varroa mite, interfering with brood care, reduced jelly in brood cells, and ultimately enabling Varroa mite to reproduce more prolifically.
A paper by Zen and Wang 2008, investigated the impact of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, on a mite:
Chun-Xiang Zeng and Jin-Jun Wang 2008: Influence of exposure to imidacloprid on survivorship, reproduction and vitellin content of the carmine spider mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus.
Note, although the pesticide was intended to control the ‘Green Peach Aphid’ Myzus persicae, it highlights that at sub-lethal doses, the effect of imidacloprid was to increase the hatch rate and survival of another pest – a mite.
The issue of 'sub-lethal doses' is important.
The fact is that sub-lethal doses (i.e. tiny doses that do not cause immediate death, but can impair function, ultimately leading to death) are barely assessed in regulatory tests for pesticides - and this issue has been picked up on by EFSA.
Sub-lethal doses are an issue, because they can be present at field margins, or can occur through residues from previous treatments in the soil.
Sub-lethal doses may contaminate the environment during application, or contaminate puddles and water sources.
As you'll see below, Bayer themselves acknowledge the importance of sub-lethal effects in the killing of 'pest speciess', so it's ironic that such effects are not adequately assessed for product registrations.
Another paper found
that outbreaks of a mite were linked to a neonicotinoid, imidacloprid,
in part by debilitating predators of mites:
Tessa Van Dyk’s study: Effects of neonicotinoid pesticide pollution of Dutch surface water on non‐target species abundance 2010 showed that in aquatic ecosystems, imidacloprid leads to an increase in WATER MITES (hydracarina – again, of the taxon ‘Acari’)
Of course, the above information
relates to mites generally, and ways in which neonicotinoids almost appear to 'favour' the mite taxon in some way. The research papers above do not specifically refer to Varroa mite.
Nevertheless, it would take a major leap of faith for me to assume that neonicotinoids could in some way, increase populations of just "certain mites", yet conveniently have no effect on Varroa mite - what do you think?
At the very least, I suggest investigation is needed.
Bees have numerous defenses against mites, fungi and predators. It’s no surprise if neonicotinoids are actively hindering those natural defences.
So far, I think questions need to be asked:
And there is a further question:
.........if neonicotinoids can and do help to cause a proliferation of mites, how is this affecting not only honey bees, but also bumblebees, solitary bees, and other non-target invertebrates, all of which have their mite predators to contend with?
Of course, the regulatory system for insecticides is inadequate to robustly assess these issues.
COPYRIGHT 2010 - 2019: WWW.BUZZABOUTBEES.NET
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.