Pan-european assessment, monitoring, and mitigation Of Stressors on the Health of BEEs

Geographical location	United Kingdom
Main geographical location (NUTS3)	West Surrey
Keywords	Animal husbandry and welfare Pest / disease control Fertilisation and nutrients management Biodiversity and nature management
Additional keywords	beekeeping bee pollination
Main funding source	Horizon 2020 (EU Research & Innovation programme)
Project Identification	Multi-actor project
Project type	Research project
Starting date	2018
End date	2023
Project status	Ongoing
Website	http://poshbee.eu

Title (in English):

PoshBee: Pan-european assessment, monitoring, and mitigation Of Stressors on the Health of BEEs

Objective of the project (native language):

See objectives in English

Objective of the project (in English):

PoshBee is a multi-actor, trans-disciplinary project whose overarching goal is to significantly enhance the sustainable health of bees and pollination services in Europe. The project will: 1) provide the first pan-European quantification of the exposure hazard of chemicals to managed and wild bees; 2) determine how chemicals alone, in mixtures, and in combination with pathogens and nutrition, affect bee health; and 3) through interactive innovation meet the demand-driven need for monitoring tools, novel and innovative screening protocols, and practice- and policy-relevant research outputs to local, national, European, and global stakeholders.

Description of activities (native language):

See desctiption in English

Description of activities (in English):

PoshBee will determine the exposure of honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees to agrochemicals across Europe. It will combine these profiles with data on pathogen prevalence and nutritional state to explain how chemical exposure affects bee health. Through laboratory, semifield and field experiments the project will determine the ecotoxicology and causal effects of chemicals, both single and mixed, on bee health for exemplar managed and wild, social and solitary bees. Finally, the project will develop new protocols for ecotoxicological studies of bees and new tools and models to monitor exposure and predict the effects of chemicals, pathogens, and nutritional stress in bees in the wild.

Project coordinator

Contact person:

Prof. Mark Brown

Address:

Royal Holloway University of London, United Kingdom

E-mail:

mark.brown@rhul.ac.uk

Phone:

+44 1784 276443

Partner category:

Researcher

Practice summary

Practice abstract 1

Short title (native language):

PoshBee: pan-European assessment, monitoring, and mitigation of stressors on the health of bees

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Bees – honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees – pollinate our crops and wildflowers, and thus are essential for human well-being. However, in Europe, and around the globe, bees face many threats and are often in decline as a result. One potential driver of reduced bee health is agrochemicals. While laboratory and semi-field studies suggest that such chemicals negatively impact bee health, their importance and relevance in the real world remains unclear. PoshBee (www.poshbee.eu) is a consortium of academics, governmental organisations, industry, and NGOs that will address the issue of agrochemicals to ensure the sustainable health of bees and their pollination services in Europe. Integrating the knowledge and experience of local beekeeping and farming organisations and academic researchers, we will provide the first comprehensive pan-European assessment of the exposure hazard of chemicals, their mixtures, and co-occurrence with pathogens and nutritional stress for solitary, bumble, and honey bees across oilseed rape and apple orchards. Integrated studies across the lab-to-field axis will determine the effect of chemicals, their mixtures, and interactions with pathogens and nutrition on bee health. We will develop new model species and innovative protocols for testing chemicals in bees, and develop dynamic landscape environmental risk assessment models for bees. Using proteomics, we will produce new molecular markers for assessing bee health and enabling long-term monitoring schemes. We will deliver practice- and policy-relevant research outputs to local, national, European, and global stakeholders. Our work will support healthy bee populations, sustainable beekeeping, and sustainable pollination across Europe.

Practice abstract 2

Short title (native language):

Pan-european assessment, monitoring, and mitigation of stressors on the health of bees (PoshBee)

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Many recent reports describe long-term declines in insects. ‘PoshBee’ aims to identify factors negatively impacting bees in European farmland, and in 2019 performed an extensive pan-European field study over 8 countries. Our recommendations for groups planning to perform similar multi-partner, farm-scale, field studies on pollinating insects are listed below.
Scientists
• Accept variation will occur among partners, but record appropriate data to be used as covariates in subsequent data analysis
• Ensure all methodological protocols are understood and are practicable for all partners
• If specialist techniques are needed, hire staff familiar with these processes or ensure staff have adequate training
• Unless additional resources are available (staff/vehicles/funding), avoid adding extra ‘side projects’ out of scope of the main project
Beekeepers
• Standardize study hives in terms of equipment, colony size etc. If possible, obtain colonies from a single source
• Beekeepers should request clear guidelines on all aspects of hive management, and what records should be maintained
• Beekeepers should maintain regular contact with project management and communicate which procedures have been performed and any pests and diseases that have been observed
Farmers
• Growers/ field sites should be located early in the planning process
• Researchers should explain what they plan to do and when, and how the farmer can help throughout the study. Farmers should explain what they require so that farm operations are not negatively impacted by the research program
• Farmers should ask what information relating to the field site and crop management is required by the research team, and then maintain appropriate, easily accessible records

Practice abstract 3

Short title (native language):

Effect of real-world clothianidin exposure on bees and their diseases

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

In this study we used 16 commercial oilseed rape fields across southern Sweden to investigate the effect of real-world clothianidin exposure on bees. Half of the fields were sown with clothianidin-treated oilseed rape seed and half with clothianidin-free seed. Honeybee and bumblebee colonies as well as mason bee cocoons and nests were placed at each field and monitored during the growing season, with the honeybee colonies also monitored the following year through a second season of clothianidin exposure in oilseed rape. Chemical analysis of the nectar and pollen collected by the bees showed large differences in clothianidin exposure between treated and untreated fields, and between the two seasons. Honeybee colony growth and development was not affected by clothianidin exposure, but both bumblebees and mason bees produced far fewer offspring at treated fields than at untreated fields. Follow-up analyses showed that clothianidin exposure had no effect on pathogen levels in either honeybees or bumblebees, nor on immune genes in honeybees. The conclusion is that honeybee colonies are relatively robust to neonicotinoid exposure in agricultural landscapes, but that bumblebees and solitary bees are strongly affected.
For farmers:
If wild pollinators and their pollination are important for you or your neighbours, consider adjusting your plant protection strategy to reduce pesticide use, particularly in flowering crops and during bloom. For honeybees this would also be beneficial, but less critical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlgxa7lOjdQ
www.nature.com/articles/nature14420
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07914-3
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08523-4

Practice abstract 4

Short title (native language):

Teamwork of scientists and beekeepers in the field

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

As part of a European-wide experiment to assess the exposure of bees to environmental stressors, we were involved in the pre- and post-project consultation for the delivery of honey bees, their care, sampling support and consultation for questions on the oil seed rape field areas.
Based on our experience we make the following recommendations:
• before the project starts it should be clear that there is enough time planned for the bees to be purchased.
• that for NGO partners or beneficiaries that have not previously been involved in an EU project, a fixed contact person for all EU formalities should be in place at a project partner who already has this knowledge.
• the use of an additional communicator on the part of the beekeepers to support the conduct of the experiment. This communicator is intended to facilitate communication between the scientific community and the beekeepers, specifically to query all parties involved in small time windows. In everyday life, the worlds of beekeepers and scientists are too different to notice discrepancies which might have negative impacts on the study early enough. To clarify, we present two examples of such issues:
a) it would prevent agreements in the field from being postponed and forgotten until one of the parties remembers too late.
b) to prevent the misalignment of biological reality and study design. For example, scientists want to take samples (e.g., honey) within a specific time (e.g., 3 weeks) and avoid hives swarming, while the beekeepers know that hives will swarm within 3 days, or immediately if honey is harvested. Without timely communication, neither party understands the issues.

Practice abstract 5

Short title (native language):

Beekeepers willingness to take up new bee health tools

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

A key output of PoshBee was the survey of beekeepers’ willingness to adopt a bee health card. In total, we surveyed over 470 beekeepers from seven countries. The findings reveal that beekeepers are more likely to adopt the tool if 1) there are monetary incentives to use it, 2) they believe it is easy to use and 3) they are confident in its effectiveness. Our findings have significant implications for future efforts to encourage good bee husbandry and health management.
If they were asked to pay any costs, beekeepers were much less likely to use the tool but they were more likely to use the tool if there were economic incentives (e.g. subsidies). When aiming to promote widespread bee health practices, subsidising the costs of these practices, at least initially, would greatly improve uptake and frequency of use. Similarly, efforts to make management options easy and convenient to use (e.g. through apps and analysis via posted samples) would also facilitate wider uptake.
Finally, effective communication of the usefulness of bee health tools and practices is key to encouraging uptake. Our analysis reveals that beekeepers associations (local and national) and other beekeepers are the main sources of information for beekeepers on bee health. Research and policy should therefore aim to disseminate information on the effectiveness of different practices to these associations as soon as they become available to support wider uptake.

Practice abstract 6

Short title (in English):

Pesticide risk assessment in honeybees: Toward the use of behavioral and reproductive performances as assessment endpoints

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In this review, we highlighted the gap between new evidence of pesticide toxicity in honeybees and regulatory toxicological bioassays recommended by regulatory test guidelines. In order to fill this gap and better assess the threat of pesticides to honeybees, we emphasized the need to complement current endpoints (essentially based on LD50 - dose at which 50% of the individuals die) with sublethal endpoints. We focus on behavioral and reproductive endpoints, which have received increasing interest due to their ecological relevance and the emergence of new technologies made in their recording. Moreover, pesticides can have low-dose effects on these endpoints. So, this review reported the biological interest and methodological measurements of such endpoints and discussed their possible use in pesticide risk assessment. It appears that homing flights and reproduction have great potential for pesticide risk assessment, mainly due to their ecological relevance. If exploratory research studies in ecotoxicology have paved the way toward a better understanding of pesticide toxicity in honeybees, the next objective will then be to translate the most relevant behavioral and reproductive endpoints into regulatory test methods. This will require more comparative studies and improving their ecological relevance. This latter goal may be facilitated by the use of population dynamics models for scaling up the consequences of adverse behavioral and reproductive effects from individuals to colonies.
Link to the review: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03170652

Short title (native language):

Évaluation des risques liés aux pesticides chez les abeilles domestiques : vers l'utilisation de paramètres comportementaux et reproductifs comme critères d'évaluation.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Dans cette revue, nous avons mis en évidence l'écart entre les nouvelles preuves de la toxicité des pesticides chez les abeilles domestiques et les essais biologiques toxicologiques recommandés par les directives d'essais réglementaires. Afin de combler cette lacune et de mieux évaluer la menace que représentent les pesticides pour les abeilles, nous avons souligné la nécessité de compléter les critères d'évaluation actuels (essentiellement basés sur la DL50 - dose à laquelle 50 % des individus meurent) par des critères sublétaux. Nous nous concentrons sur les paramètres comportementaux et reproductifs, qui ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt croissant en raison de leur pertinence écologique et de l'émergence de nouvelles technologies permettant de les enregistrer. De plus, les pesticides peuvent avoir des effets sublétaux sur ces paramètres. Cette revue fait donc état de l'intérêt biologique et des mesures méthodologiques de ces paramètres et discute de leur utilisation possible dans l'évaluation des risques liés aux pesticides. Il apparaît que les vols de retour et la reproduction ont un grand potentiel pour l'évaluation des risques liés aux pesticides, principalement en raison de leur pertinence écologique. Si les études de recherche exploratoire en écotoxicologie ont ouvert la voie à une meilleure compréhension de la toxicité des pesticides chez les abeilles domestiques, le prochain objectif sera alors de traduire les paramètres comportementaux et reproductifs les plus pertinents en méthodes d'essai réglementaires. Il faudra pour cela multiplier les études comparatives et améliorer leur pertinence écologique. Ce dernier objectif pourrait être facilité par l'utilisation de modèles de dynamique des populations pour transposer les conséquences des effets comportementaux et reproductifs négatifs des individus aux colonies.
Voici le lien pour lire la revue : https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03170652

Practice abstract 7

Short title (in English):

Pollen nutrition fosters honeybee tolerance to pesticides

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The availability of nutritive resources is a key factor affecting honeybee health. However, a reduction in floral resource abundance and diversity is generally observed in agro-ecosystems, along with widespread exposure to pesticides. We therefore studied whether the availability and quality of pollen diets could affect the susceptibility of honeybees to pesticides. For that purpose, we evaluated the toxicity of azoxystrobin (fungicide) and sulfoxaflor (insecticide) in honeybees provided with pollen diets of differing qualities. We found that both pollen availability and most importantly its quality (bees rarely facing a total lack of pollen) can improve their ability to eliminate pesticides and reduce the mortality risk that they cause.
This nutritional modulation may increase variability in pesticide sensitivity in the field, given that the abundance and composition of honeybee pollen diets can be highly variable across landscapes and seasons. Consequently, the availability of floral resources should be considered in honeybee pesticide risk assessment. Finally, this study provides another strong argument for the restoration of floral resource abundance and diversity in such habitats.

Link to the study: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210818

Short title (native language):

See the title in English.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

See summary in English.

Practice abstract 8

Short title (native language):

Practical Aspects Of Semi-Field Bee Studies

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

We carried out semi-field studies on honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees to study the impacts of pairs of stressors (pesticide + pesticide; pesticide + nutritional deficit). Key points for researchers of similar studies include:
1. The supply of food (nectar and pollen) in enclosures must match or exceed demand. We suggest (a) an enclosure of 72m2 for a honey bee colony of 3,000 adults; (b) an enclosure of 54m2 for a bumble bee colony; and (c) an enclosure of 36m2 for 100 laying female Osmia species.
2. The crop (preferably Phacelia tanacetifolia sown at 5kg/ha) should be grown so that bloom coincides with the desired start of the study (approximately 55 days after sowing). The seed bed should be thoroughly prepared by mechanical means, without herbicides. Synchronising bloom of different species is challenging.
3. Timing of application of pesticides must be in accordance with the product label. Where products have to be applied before bloom, prediction of the correct date is difficult; regular and thorough monitoring of the plants is essential.
4. Honey bee colonies should be in small hives (Mini Plus Beuten), with specially manufactured components for research. These include study frames for photographing brood; converter hives for creating uniform study colonies; combined pollen traps, Varroa traps and dead bee traps, etc.
5. Bumble bee colonies should be small at the start of the study.
6. Osmia emergence must be controlled carefully.
7. There are many opportunities to use novel technologies in these studies.

Practice abstract 9

Short title (in English):

Pan-European baseline of chemical, nutritional and pathogen stressors for bees

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In 2019, PoshBee partners undertook a field survey across 8 European countries (CH, DE, EE, ES, IE, IT, SE, UK) to assess the exposure of bees to multiple stressors (chemical products, pathogens, and nutritional deficiency). Honey bees, bumble bees and mason bees were deployed on oilseed rape fields and apple orchards (128 sites in total). For each site, the agricultural practices, environmental parameters and landscape features were assessed.
High levels of pesticide residues were found in bees and bee products. Nearly all beebread samples contained at least one pesticide, mostly fungicides. Approximately half of nectar samples were contaminated with pesticides, fungicides being often identified. More than two thirds of beeswax contained at least one pesticide. Potassium, magnesium and aluminium were quantified at high concentrations in honeybees and in beebread from the three bee species. The main pathogens (viruses, microsporidia, and bacteria) were detected in honey bees. In contrast, only few of them were detected in bumble bees and mason bees. In terms of nutrition, protein content in beebread did not vary at country and species level. In contrast, there was a high variation of lipid content at country and species level.
As a result, we recommend that:
• Scientists: Assess several types of stressors at multiple developmental stages and matrices when investigating pollinator health.
• Beekeepers: Thoroughly examine colonies for early detection of diseases to reduce damage on honeybee populations.
• Farmers: Pollinator health is also important for you. Adjust your plant protection strategy to reduce pesticide use.

Short title (native language):

See the tile in English.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

See summary in English.

Practice abstract 10

Short title (in English):

Sulfoxaflor can benefit Varroa destructor and might interact with a commonly used acaricide

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Beekeepers are confronted with unsustainable high losses of managed Western honey bee, Apis mellifera, colonies. There is consensus that such losses are closely associated with ectoparasitic mites, Varroa destructor, which are potent vectors of several viruses. However, these mites may also interact with other stressors, e.g. acaricides (e.g., coumaphos) or widely used neonicotinoid-like insecticides (e.g., sulfoxaflor). However, the interface between mites and these chemicals is poorly understood. Here, we show that field-realistic concentrations of sulfoxaflor can increase the reproduction of V. destructor. Furthermore, in combination with coumaphos, sulfoxaflor can also cause higher mortality in bee larvae. Our data support that neonicotinoid (-like) insecticides can not only have negative consequences for bees, but also seem to have positive effects on mites.
Implementations/recommendations: The positive correlation between sulfoxaflor and mite reproduction is concerning and should be considered when assessing the risk of agrochemicals to bees. The combined effects of sulfoxaflor and coumaphos are not fully understood and require further research. However, our data suggest that such possible interactions have to be integrated in the risk assessment process. Beekeepers should consider the possible negative side effects of their interventions and keep in mind that acaricides might also have undesired side effects on bees either alone and/or in combination with other agrochemicals.

Short title (native language):

See the tile in English.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

See summary in English.

Practice abstract 11

Short title (in English):

Insights from experiments on interactions between sulfoxaflor and a parasite in bumble bees

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

We conducted a range of laboratory experiments on individual bumble bees where we exposed them to one of three agrochemicals (sulfoxaflor, an insecticide; azoxystrobin, a fungicide; glyphosate, a herbicide) and/or Crithidia bombi (a common bumble bee gut parasite). We assessed impacts on survival, food consumption, parasite load and learning. We conclude that, under the experimental conditions we used, there are no meaningful interactions between these agrochemicals and the common bumble bee parasite. This suggests that current laboratory-based aspects of risk assessment of these agrochemicals does not require integration of parasitism as an additional stressor. However, we note that other conditions, and other, more virulent parasites, may still be a source of interactive impacts on bee health.
We also exposed ~6-8 week old bumble bee colonies to sulfoxaflor and/or the parasite Crithidia bombi and examined impacts on colony development and pollination services. The results suggest that field realistic exposure of bumble bee colonies 6-8 weeks post-founding to sulfoxaflor, and/or the parasite, is not harmful to their development, nor does it impact pollination services. This develops our understanding of the safe use of sulfoxaflor. While sulfoxaflor has now been banned for outside use in the EU, our research does not suggest further changes to its registration in or outside the EU are currently justified. However, further studies of interactions with other pathogens are needed before general statements can be made.

Short title (native language):

See the tile in English.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

See summary in English.

Practice abstract 12

Short title (in English):

Communicating uncertainty

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

PoshBee is a complex project requiring communication with multiple stakeholder categories with diverse knowledge, meaning we often have to transfer information from one category to the other, which involves overcoming certain barriers. Specifically, one barrier that seems to be relevant across all stakeholder groups’ communication is sharing uncertainty. Uncertainty is an inherent part of knowledge, yet, with increasing doubt about scientific authority, we are reluctant to openly share it. However, not adequately communicating uncertainty can lead to a loss of trust from your audience. To help practitioners communicate their uncertainty to stakeholders, we present a list of PoshBee-tested tips:
● Establish the object of uncertainty: does it concern the underlying hypothesis or the claimed facts? Defining the scope of uncertainty will help you address it.
● Be transparent and specific: elusive expressions like “could be higher or lower” decrease the audience’s trust. Being explicit about what you do not know avoids casting a shadow of mistrust over the entire message, making your audience think none of the information can be trusted. It is also important to explain jargon, avoiding wrong interpretations.
● Avoid repeating qualifiers: studies found that reading the same qualifier several times increases its strength in the audience’s perception (Mislavsky & Gaertig, 2020), causing unwarranted certainty.
● Know how much science is enough: uncertainty can arise if your audience is flooded with the technicalities of scientific details. On the other hand, they may be inadequately informed if not presented with important uncertainties in the field, which create nuances on a certain topic.
Source: dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3454796

Short title (native language):

See the tile in English.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

See summary in English.

Practice abstract 13

Short title (in English):

Good practices in science communication

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

PoshBee’s long-term objective is to support healthy bee populations & sustainable beekeeping, in which successful cooperation between diverse stakeholder groups is crucial. Here, effective science communication plays a huge role, bridging the gap between the groups’ areas of expertise. To achieve that in PoshBee, we often receive feedback from our stakeholder groups, ensuring bi-directional communication, for example via surveys or dedicated sessions. Based on stakeholder feedback, we created a list of good practices to help practitioners in their cooperation with different stakeholders with potentially diverging expertise.
● Plain language: avoid jargon - use figures of speech instead. Illustrative figures like metaphors or examples provide a human dimension to the otherwise abstract information. They help the audience understand the new concept by connecting it to a concept already familiar to them. Additionally, visual communication like graphics accompanying the text makes information easier to retain and increases its accessibility as it can reach people of all literacy levels.
● Tailoring: take into account who your audience is. To develop messages which capture people’s interest, it is essential to first identify & understand their values and needs. You can then use this understanding to determine the content they receive, how it is framed, who presents it & where. In this way, you make sure your message is indeed relevant.
● Positive arguments: emphasise solutions and benefits, not problems & losses. Make sure to acknowledge uncertainty and scepticism, but also demonstrate established knowledge. This ensures you address the barriers stakeholders face while providing them with solutions, which make change seem easy.

Short title (native language):

See the tile in English.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

See summary in English.

Practice abstract 14

Short title (in English):

A new frontier for visualising the impact of stressors in honey bees: proteins in pictures

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In animal and human health care, imaging techniques such as radiology, echography and scanning by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have hugely improved the prognosis and diagnosis of diseases by veterinarians and doctors. Imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) provides unique opportunities for analysing tissues, organs, and even whole organisms at an unprecedented level of detail. We have adapted IMS for use in honey bees, enabling us to produce images of drugs/chemicals, metabolites, sugars, lipids (fats) & protein distributions across organs. This is visualised in scans of protein distribution in the body of honey bees that are infected, or not, by a fungal parasite, the causative agent of nosemosis.
-As Confucius, the Chinese Philosopher, said “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Just imagine a general practitioner facing a broken leg without the image provided by a radiogram
-The unique IMS technique bridges the gap between visual examination & targeted molecular analyses
-A new frontier to discover protein signatures of an organ & a body in response to stressors
-A new generation of mass spectrometers are compatible for high-throughput screening of the spatial distribution of proteins, lipids, metabolites and drugs in any type of tissue or the entire body of a honey bee
-It is well known that nosemosis impacts gut morphology and physiology. When applied to a honey bee facing nosemosis, IMS also highlighted the nosemosis’ impact on the flight muscles located in the thorax, on the gland secreting the Royalisin protein, and on the immune response triggered by Nosema (presence of the Apidaecin protein) in bee blood
-A versatile technique applicable to other pollinators
Sources: doi:10.1002/pmic.202100224, www.theses.fr/2020GRALV009

Short title (native language):

See the tile in English.

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

See summary in English.

Further details

Audiovisual material:

Brochure

Poster

Inforgraphic - project overview

Press release

Description of the context of the project:

Bees – honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees – pollinate our crops and wildflowers, and thus are essential for human
well-being. However, in Europe, and around the globe, bees face many threats and are often in decline as a result. One
potential driver of reduced bee health is agrochemicals. While laboratory and semi-field studies suggest that such chemicals
negatively impact bee health, their importance and relevance in the real world remains unclear. Chemicals are an integral feature of modern agriculture, controlling pests and disease in crops and domesticated animals. However, agrochemicals can also have negative effects on non-target organisms, with ensuing environmental costs [Hallmann et al. 2014]. The potential effects of agrochemicals on bee health is a high profile, yet unresolved case [Godfray et al. 2015], as bees provide the essential ecosystem service of pollination, but are at risk around the globe [Potts et al. 2016, Vanbergen et al. 2013]. Previous research has shown that agrochemicals affect behaviour, immunity, lifespan, physiology, and reproduction of individual bees and colonies, in honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees [Godfray et al. 2015, Tsvetkov et al. 2017, Woodcock et al. 2017], and that this may reduce pollination efficiency [Stanley et al. 2015].

Additional information:

Specific Objectives:
1. Exposure hazard: drawing on the complementary expertise of a diverse range of actors, we will quantify the exposure of honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees to chemicals within major agricultural cropping systems across Europe.
2. Ecotoxicokinetics: through the development of innovative protocols and novel model systems, co-created with end-user partners, we will assess toxicity and dynamics of key agrochemicals, and their mixtures, in honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees.
3. Health effects: taking a trans-disciplinary approach, we will integrate across laboratory, semi-field, field, and landscape studies to provide a holistic understanding of how chemicals, their mixtures, and their interactions with pathogens and nutrition drive health in honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees.
4. Modeling bee health: PoshBee will develop the first mechanistically-underpinned holistic model of bee health.
5. Monitoring tools and protocols: we will provide validated tools for the monitoring and assessment of bee health and exposure to stressors. We will develop and test an innovative ‘air sensor’ tool for assessing chemical exposure within honey bee hives. Using proteomics, we will produce a novel molecular monitoring tool, or ‘health card’ for bees, that measures chemical exposure, pathogens, immune capacities, and nutritional state.
6. Driving policy and practice: PoshBee will develop a European bee health knowledge exchange hub by working together with key stakeholders in the honey bee, agrochemical, farming, pollination service, research, EU policy and regulatory, and bee conservation sectors.