Sgolastra Fabio, Hinarejos Silvia, Pitts-Singer Theresa L, Boyle Natalie K, Joseph Timothy, Luckmann Johannes, Raine Nigel E, Singh Rajwinder, Williams Neal M, Bosch Jordi
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agro-Alimentari, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Valent U.S.A. LLC, Dublin, CA.
Environ Entomol. 2019 Feb 13;48(1):22-35. doi: 10.1093/ee/nvy105.
Current pesticide risk assessment for bees relies on a single (social) species, the western honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). However, most of the >20,000 bee species worldwide are solitary. Differences in life history traits between solitary bees (SB) and honey bees (HB) are likely to determine differences in routes and levels of pesticide exposure. The objectives of this review are to: 1) compare SB and HB life history traits relevant for risk assessment; 2) summarize current knowledge about levels of pesticide exposure for SB and HB; 3) identify knowledge gaps and research needs; 4) evaluate whether current HB risk assessment schemes cover routes and levels of exposure of SB; and 5) identify potential SB model species for risk assessment. Most SB exposure routes seem well covered by current HB risk assessment schemes. Exceptions to this are exposure routes related to nesting substrates and nesting materials used by SB. Exposure via soil is of particular concern because most SB species nest underground. Six SB species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae - Osmia bicornis L., O. cornifrons Radoszkowski, O. cornuta Latreille, O. lignaria Say, Megachile rotundata F., and Halictidae - Nomia melanderi Cockerell) are commercially available and could be used in risk assessment. Of these, only N. melanderi nests underground, and the rest are cavity-nesters. However, the three Osmia species collect soil to build their nests. Life history traits of cavity-nesting species make them particularly suitable for semifield and, to a lesser extent, field tests. Future studies should address basic biology, rearing methods and levels of exposure of ground-nesting SB species.
当前针对蜜蜂的农药风险评估仅依赖单一(社会性)物种——西方蜜蜂,即意大利蜜蜂(膜翅目:蜜蜂科)。然而,全球两万多种蜜蜂中大多数为独居蜂。独居蜂(SB)和蜜蜂(HB)在生活史特征上的差异可能决定了农药暴露途径和暴露水平的差异。本综述的目的在于:1)比较与风险评估相关的独居蜂和蜜蜂的生活史特征;2)总结关于独居蜂和蜜蜂农药暴露水平的现有知识;3)识别知识空白和研究需求;4)评估当前蜜蜂风险评估方案是否涵盖独居蜂的暴露途径和暴露水平;5)识别用于风险评估的潜在独居蜂模式物种。当前蜜蜂风险评估方案似乎涵盖了大多数独居蜂的暴露途径。例外情况是与独居蜂使用的筑巢基质和筑巢材料相关的暴露途径。通过土壤的暴露尤其令人担忧,因为大多数独居蜂物种在地下筑巢。有六种独居蜂物种(膜翅目:切叶蜂科——角额壁蜂、角唇壁蜂、凹唇壁蜂、紫壁蜂、苜蓿切叶蜂,以及隧蜂科——苜蓿隧蜂)有商业供应,可用于风险评估。其中,只有苜蓿隧蜂在地下筑巢,其余均为洞穴筑巢者。然而,三种壁蜂会收集土壤来筑巢。洞穴筑巢物种的生活史特征使其特别适合半田间试验,在较小程度上也适合田间试验。未来的研究应关注地面筑巢独居蜂物种的基础生物学、饲养方法和暴露水平。