No evidence for negative impacts of acute sulfoxaflor exposure on bee olfactory conditioning or working memory

Harry Siviter*, Alfie Scott, Grégoire Pasquier, Christopher D. Pull, Mark J.F. Brown, Ellouise Leadbeater

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Systemic insecticides such as neonicotinoids and sulfoximines can be present in the nectar and pollen of treated crops, through which foraging bees can become acutely exposed. Research has shown that acute, field realistic dosages of neonicotinoids can negatively influence bee learning and memory, with potential consequences for bee behaviour. As legislative reassessment of neonicotinoid use occurs globally, there is an urgent need to understand the potential risk of other systemic insecticides. Sulfoxaflor, the first branded sulfoximine-based insecticide, has the same mode of action as neonicotinoids, and may potentially replace them over large geographical ranges. Here we assessed the impact of acute sulfoxaflor exposure on performance in two paradigms that have previously been used to illustrate negative impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides on bee learning and memory. We assayed whether acute sulfoxaflor exposure influences (a) olfactory conditioning performance in both bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) and honeybees (Apis mellifera), using a proboscis extension reflex assay, and (b) working memory performance of bumblebees, using a radial-arm maze. We found no evidence to suggest that sulfoxaflor influenced performance in either paradigm. Our results suggest that despite a shared mode of action between sulfoxaflor and neonicotinoidbased insecticides, widely-documented effects of neonicotinoids on bee cognition may not be observed with sulfoxaflor, at least at acute exposure regimes.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere7208
JournalPeerJ
Volume2019
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Harry Siviter was supported by a Royal Holloway University of London Reid PhD Scholarship and by contributions from High Wycombe Beekeeper’s Association. Elli Leadbeater’s contribution was supported by the European Research Council (Starting Grant BeeDanceGap 638873; honeybee section) and The Leverhulme Trust (RGP-2016-444; RAM section). This project has received funding from the European Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no.773921 & Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Grant/Award Number:BB/N000668/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding Information:
Harry Siviter was supported by a Royal Holloway University of London Reid PhD Scholarship and by contributions from High Wycombe Beekeeper's Association. Elli Leadbeater's contribution was supported by the European Research Council (Starting Grant BeeDanceGap 638873; honeybee section) and The Leverhulme Trust (RGP-2016-444; RAM section). This project has received funding from the European Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no.773921 & Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Grant/Award Number:BB/N000668/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2019 Siviter et al.

Keywords

  • Bumblebees
  • Honeybee
  • Insecticide
  • Memory
  • Neonicotinoid
  • Radial-arm maze
  • Spatial-working memory
  • Sulfoxaflor
  • Sulfoximine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'No evidence for negative impacts of acute sulfoxaflor exposure on bee olfactory conditioning or working memory'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this