Suppr超能文献

评估欧洲食品安全局对蜜蜂(Apis mellifera)的保护目标:它们对授粉意味着什么?

Evaluating European Food Safety Authority Protection Goals for Honeybees (Apis mellifera): What Do They Mean for Pollination?

机构信息

National Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom.

National Bee Unit, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2018 Nov;14(6):750-758. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4078. Epub 2018 Aug 3.

Abstract

In recent years there has been growing concern regarding the sudden and unexplained failure of honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Several factors have been suggested, including pesticides. In an effort to regulate their impact, guidance published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recommended that the magnitude of effects on exposed colonies should not exceed 7% reduction in colony size after 2 brood cycles. However, fears have been raised regarding the practicality of measuring such a loss in the field. It is also unclear how this protection goal relates to maintaining the ecosystem services provided by bees, which we argue should be a primary objective for regulators. Here, we evaluate what these protection goals mean in relation to ecosystems performance using a computational colony model that incorporates mechanisms to simulate both lethal and sublethal pesticide effects. To these simulations, we apply a testing regime similar to that commonly used in field trials to produce standard assessment metrics. By relating these measures to losses in forager activity, we aim to identify which could be used as effective indicators of reduced ecoservice and to quantify acceptable limits below which performance can be maintained. Our findings show that loss of colony size is the best indicator of reduced ecoservice. Metrics that focus on specific colony functions such as increased brood or forager mortality are ineffective indicators for all types of simulated pesticide effects. At the levels of colony loss recommended by EFSA, using our default parameterization, we predict a loss of ecosystems performance of 3% to 4%. However, based on an extensive sensitivity analysis, it is clear that this estimate is subject to substantial uncertainty with losses under alternative parameterizations of up to 14%. Nevertheless, our model provides a valuable framework for assessing protection goals, allowing regulators to test relevant impacts and quantify their magnitude. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:750-758. © 2018 Crown Copyright and SETAC.

摘要

近年来,人们越来越关注蜜蜂(Apis mellifera)群体突然且无法解释的衰竭。已经提出了几种因素,包括杀虫剂。为了控制其影响,欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)发布的指南建议,在 2 个育雏周期后,暴露于杀虫剂的蜂群中,蜂群规模的减少不应超过 7%。然而,人们担心在实地测量这种损失的实用性。目前尚不清楚这个保护目标与维持蜜蜂提供的生态系统服务之间的关系,我们认为这应该是监管机构的主要目标。在这里,我们使用一种包含模拟致死和亚致死杀虫剂效应的机制的计算蜂群模型,来评估这些保护目标与生态系统性能的关系。对于这些模拟,我们应用类似于田间试验中常用的测试方案,以产生标准评估指标。通过将这些测量结果与觅食者活动的损失相关联,我们旨在确定哪些指标可作为生态服务减少的有效指标,并量化可以维持性能的可接受极限。我们的研究结果表明,蜂群规模的减少是生态服务减少的最佳指标。关注特定蜂群功能的指标,如增加的幼虫或觅食者死亡率,对于所有类型的模拟杀虫剂效应都是无效的指标。在 EFSA 建议的蜂群损失水平下,使用我们的默认参数化,我们预测生态系统性能损失为 3%至 4%。然而,基于广泛的敏感性分析,很明显,根据替代参数化,这一估计存在很大的不确定性,损失高达 14%。然而,我们的模型为评估保护目标提供了一个有价值的框架,使监管机构能够测试相关影响并量化其程度。综合环境评估与管理 2018;14:750-758。©2018 英国皇家版权和 SETAC。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验