Honeybee brood testing under semi-field and field conditions according to Oomen and OECD GD 75: is there a difference of the brood termination rate?

J. Lückmann, Verena Tänzler
{"title":"Honeybee brood testing under semi-field and field conditions according to Oomen and OECD GD 75: is there a difference of the brood termination rate?","authors":"J. Lückmann, Verena Tänzler","doi":"10.5073/JKA.2020.465.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to current European regulations on the risk assessment of plant protection products, the risk on honey bee larvae or honey bee brood has to be addressed. If the assessment indicates, that a potential risk cannot be excluded based on data derived from laboratory studies, two higher-tier options are given by the EFSA bee Guidance Document to refine this under more realistic conditions: the Oomen bee brood feeding test and brood studies performed according to the OECD Guidance Document 75. Both study types focus on the brood termination rate (BTR) as the key endpoint. While the Oomen brood test investigates the brood development after the acute or chronic administration of a test item spiked sugar solution to unconfined colonies, brood studies according to OECD GD 75 are performed under semi-field confined exposure conditions and examine potential effects on the bee brood after the overspray of a bee attractive flowering crop. However, the evaluation of historical data from semi-field studies according to OECD GD 75 showed a strong variability of the BTR of pre-imaginal stages developing from marked eggs (BTReggs) in the control. As an alternative, field studies according to EPPO 170 which comprise bee brood evaluations according to OECD GD 75 were considered to produce more reliable termination data. The statistical analysis of available control data shows that Oomen feeding studies and bee brood studies performed under field conditions lead to significantly lower BTReggs of = 20% compared to semi-field bee brood studies for which a mean BTR of about 30% is observed. Moreover, studies with unconfined colonies show a high proportion of control replicates with BTReggs =30% and =40% indicating a higher reliability compared to semifield studies. A comparison of the possibilities and limitations of the three methods shows the strength of each method. In Oomen studies, the exposure of the brood and of the hive bees only can be regarded as artificial. However, the test concentrations can be adjusted to specific needs and to different feeding durations of at least one (acute) or 9 days (chronic). Furthermore, the absence of ‘caging effects’, the low dependency on climatic or crop conditions, the potential to test also herbicides which control dicotyledonous plants (since no crop plant is adversely affected by its mode of action) and an exposure period of at least nine days in chronic Oomen studies are crucial advantages. In contrast, the exposure scenarios of the two other methods are much more realistic and especially for semi-field studies a worst-case situation. Moreover, they also include exposure via pollen and exposure levels and durations, which strongly depend on the application rate and the flowering period of the treated crop. Whereas a dilution of plant protection product residues cannot be excluded during the exposure period in studies with unconfined colonies due to the shift to untreated flowering plants in the surrounding, this is not given for semi-field studies.","PeriodicalId":30493,"journal":{"name":"JuliusKuhnArchiv","volume":"1 1","pages":"91-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JuliusKuhnArchiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5073/JKA.2020.465.043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

According to current European regulations on the risk assessment of plant protection products, the risk on honey bee larvae or honey bee brood has to be addressed. If the assessment indicates, that a potential risk cannot be excluded based on data derived from laboratory studies, two higher-tier options are given by the EFSA bee Guidance Document to refine this under more realistic conditions: the Oomen bee brood feeding test and brood studies performed according to the OECD Guidance Document 75. Both study types focus on the brood termination rate (BTR) as the key endpoint. While the Oomen brood test investigates the brood development after the acute or chronic administration of a test item spiked sugar solution to unconfined colonies, brood studies according to OECD GD 75 are performed under semi-field confined exposure conditions and examine potential effects on the bee brood after the overspray of a bee attractive flowering crop. However, the evaluation of historical data from semi-field studies according to OECD GD 75 showed a strong variability of the BTR of pre-imaginal stages developing from marked eggs (BTReggs) in the control. As an alternative, field studies according to EPPO 170 which comprise bee brood evaluations according to OECD GD 75 were considered to produce more reliable termination data. The statistical analysis of available control data shows that Oomen feeding studies and bee brood studies performed under field conditions lead to significantly lower BTReggs of = 20% compared to semi-field bee brood studies for which a mean BTR of about 30% is observed. Moreover, studies with unconfined colonies show a high proportion of control replicates with BTReggs =30% and =40% indicating a higher reliability compared to semifield studies. A comparison of the possibilities and limitations of the three methods shows the strength of each method. In Oomen studies, the exposure of the brood and of the hive bees only can be regarded as artificial. However, the test concentrations can be adjusted to specific needs and to different feeding durations of at least one (acute) or 9 days (chronic). Furthermore, the absence of ‘caging effects’, the low dependency on climatic or crop conditions, the potential to test also herbicides which control dicotyledonous plants (since no crop plant is adversely affected by its mode of action) and an exposure period of at least nine days in chronic Oomen studies are crucial advantages. In contrast, the exposure scenarios of the two other methods are much more realistic and especially for semi-field studies a worst-case situation. Moreover, they also include exposure via pollen and exposure levels and durations, which strongly depend on the application rate and the flowering period of the treated crop. Whereas a dilution of plant protection product residues cannot be excluded during the exposure period in studies with unconfined colonies due to the shift to untreated flowering plants in the surrounding, this is not given for semi-field studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据Oomen和OECD GD 75,半田间和田间条件下的蜜蜂育雏试验:育雏终止率有差异吗?
根据目前欧洲关于植物保护产品风险评估的规定,必须解决蜜蜂幼虫或蜜蜂窝的风险。如果评估表明,根据实验室研究得出的数据,无法排除潜在风险,欧洲食品安全局蜜蜂指导文件给出了两个更高级别的选择,以在更现实的条件下完善这一点:根据经合组织指导文件75进行的Oomen蜜蜂育婴试验和育婴研究。这两种研究类型都将育婴终止率(BTR)作为关键终点。虽然Oomen育婴试验调查了在无限制菌落中急性或慢性施用试验品加糖溶液后的育婴发育,但根据OECD GD 75的育婴研究是在半田间限制暴露条件下进行的,并检查了对蜜蜂有吸引力的开花作物过量喷洒后对蜜蜂育婴的潜在影响。然而,根据OECD GD 75对来自半实地研究的历史数据的评估显示,对照组中由标记蛋(BTReggs)发育而来的想象前阶段的BTR具有很强的可变性。另一种选择是,根据EPPO 170进行的实地研究,包括根据OECD GD 75进行的蜜蜂繁殖评估,被认为可以产生更可靠的终止数据。对可用对照数据的统计分析表明,与观察到平均BTR约为30%的半田间养蜂研究相比,在田间条件下进行的Oomen饲养研究和养蜂研究导致BTReggs显著降低,为=20%。此外,对无限制菌落的研究表明,BTReggs=30%和=40%的对照重复比例很高,表明与半田间研究相比,其可靠性更高。对这三种方法的可能性和局限性进行比较,可以看出每种方法的优势。在Oomen研究中,窝蜂和蜂箱蜂的暴露只能被视为人为的。然而,测试浓度可以根据具体需要和至少一天(急性)或9天(慢性)的不同喂养持续时间进行调整。此外,在长期Oomen研究中,没有“笼效应”,对气候或作物条件的依赖性低,有可能测试控制双子叶植物的除草剂(因为没有作物受到其作用模式的不利影响),以及至少九天的暴露期,这些都是至关重要的优势。相比之下,其他两种方法的暴露场景要现实得多,尤其是对于最坏情况下的半现场研究。此外,它们还包括通过花粉的暴露以及暴露水平和持续时间,这在很大程度上取决于施用率和处理作物的花期。尽管在无限制菌落的研究中,由于周围的开花植物转移到未经处理的植物上,在暴露期内不能排除植物保护产品残留物的稀释,但这不适用于半田间研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
»Das Archiv ist nutzlos, wenn wir es nicht auswerten«. Walter Kempowski öffnet sein Archiv Zeitschriften als ›kleine Archive‹. Geschichte, Stellenwert und Funktion des ›Kleinen‹ im ›großen‹ Archiv »Wie man es erzählen kann, so ist es nicht gewesen«. Archiv und Schreiben: Christa Wolf Kann ich das sehen? Über Aufmerksamkeit und Ordnung im Umgang mit dem Uwe Johnson-Archiv Die Erfindung der Nachkriegsliteratur. Verlagsinterna: Das Voten-Archiv des Rowohlt Verlags
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1