Combined Effects of Pesticides and Electromagnetic-Fields on Honeybees: Multi-Stress Exposure

2021 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 1077

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typeother

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Combined Effects of Pesticides and Electromagnetic-Fields on Honeybees: Multi-Stress Exposure Daniela Lupi, Marco Palamara Mesiano, Agnese Adani, Roberto Benocci, Roberto Giacchini, Paolo Parenti, Giovanni Zambon, Antonio Lavazza, Maria B. Boniotti, Stefano Bassi, Mario Colombo, Paolo Tremolada. 2021. Combined Effects of Pesticides and Electromagnetic-Fields on Honeybees: Multi-Stress Exposure. Insects. 12(8):716. doi: 10.3390/insects12080716. Simple Summary Multi-stress conditions are considered the most putative cause of honeybee decline. The ongoing reduction of domestic and natural pollinators is considered a very severe signal of the current loss of biodiversity, and it requires a broad research effort to clarify the causes. In this research, the combined effects of two possible stress sources for bees, pesticides and electromagnetic fields (multi-stress conditions) were analyzed by a field trial. After one year of monitoring, a complex picture of several induced effects was present, especially in the multi-stress site, such as disease appearance (American foulbrood), higher mortality in the underbaskets (common to pesticide-stress site), behavioral alterations (queen changes, excess of both drone-brood deposition and honey storage) and biochemical anomalies (higher ALP activity at the end of the season). The multi-stress site showed the worst health condition of the bee colonies, with only one alive at the end of the experimentation out of the four ones present at the beginning. Abstract Honeybee and general pollinator decline is extensively reported in many countries, adding new concern to the general biodiversity loss. Many studies were addressed to assess the causes of pollinator decline, concluding that in most cases multi-stress effects were the most probable ones. In this research, the combined effects of two possible stress sources for bees, pesticides and electromagnetic fields (multi-stress conditions), were analyzed in the field. Three experimental sites were chosen: a control one far from direct anthropogenic stress sources, a pesticide-stress site and multi-stress one, adding to the same exposure to pesticides the presence of an electromagnetic field, coming from a high-voltage electric line. Experimental apiaries were monitored weekly for one year (from April 2017 to April 2018) by means of colony survival, queen activity, storage and brood amount, parasites and pathogens, and several biomarkers in young workers and pupae. Both exposure and effect biomarkers were analysed: among the first, acetylcholinesterase (AChE), catalase (CAT), glutathione S- transferase (GST) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS); and among the last, DNA fragmentation (DNAFRAGM) and lipid peroxidation (LPO). Results showed that bee health conditions were the worst in the multi-stress site with only one colony alive out of the four ones present at the beginning. In this site, a complex picture of adverse effects was observed, such as disease appearance (American foulbrood), higher mortality in the underbaskets (common to pesticide-stress site), behavioral alterations (queen changes, excess of honey storage) and biochemical anomalies (higher ALP activity at the end of the season). The overall results clearly indicate that the multi-stress conditions were able to induce biochemical, physiological and behavioral alterations which severely threatened bee colony survival. Open access paper: mdpi.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionharm

PopulationHoneybees (colonies in experimental apiaries)

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposureone year (April 2017 to April 2018)

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a field trial comparing control, pesticide-stress, and combined pesticide+electromagnetic-field (from a high-voltage electric line) sites over one year, the multi-stress site showed the worst colony health, with 1 of 4 colonies alive at the end. The multi-stress site showed a complex pattern of adverse outcomes including disease appearance (American foulbrood), higher mortality in underbaskets (also seen in the pesticide-stress site), behavioral alterations (e.g., queen changes, excess honey storage), and biochemical anomalies (higher ALP activity at the end of the season).

Outcomes measured

Colony survival
Queen activity/changes
Storage and brood amount
Parasites and pathogens (including American foulbrood appearance)
Mortality in underbaskets
Behavioral alterations (e.g., excess honey storage; drone-brood deposition mentioned in summary)
Biomarkers in young workers and pupae: AChE, CAT, GST, ALP, ROS
Effect biomarkers: DNA fragmentation (DNAFRAGM), lipid peroxidation (LPO)

Limitations

EMF exposure characteristics (e.g., field strength, frequency) not reported in the abstract
Sample size not fully reported in the abstract (only multi-stress site colonies explicitly described as 4 at baseline)
Field study with multiple concurrent stressors; effects attributable specifically to EMF vs pesticides cannot be isolated from the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "high-voltage electric line",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "one year (April 2017 to April 2018)"
  },
  "population": "Honeybees (colonies in experimental apiaries)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Colony survival",
    "Queen activity/changes",
    "Storage and brood amount",
    "Parasites and pathogens (including American foulbrood appearance)",
    "Mortality in underbaskets",
    "Behavioral alterations (e.g., excess honey storage; drone-brood deposition mentioned in summary)",
    "Biomarkers in young workers and pupae: AChE, CAT, GST, ALP, ROS",
    "Effect biomarkers: DNA fragmentation (DNAFRAGM), lipid peroxidation (LPO)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a field trial comparing control, pesticide-stress, and combined pesticide+electromagnetic-field (from a high-voltage electric line) sites over one year, the multi-stress site showed the worst colony health, with 1 of 4 colonies alive at the end. The multi-stress site showed a complex pattern of adverse outcomes including disease appearance (American foulbrood), higher mortality in underbaskets (also seen in the pesticide-stress site), behavioral alterations (e.g., queen changes, excess honey storage), and biochemical anomalies (higher ALP activity at the end of the season).",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "EMF exposure characteristics (e.g., field strength, frequency) not reported in the abstract",
    "Sample size not fully reported in the abstract (only multi-stress site colonies explicitly described as 4 at baseline)",
    "Field study with multiple concurrent stressors; effects attributable specifically to EMF vs pesticides cannot be isolated from the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "honeybees",
    "pollinators",
    "multi-stress",
    "pesticides",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "high-voltage electric line",
    "colony survival",
    "American foulbrood",
    "biomarkers",
    "AChE",
    "CAT",
    "GST",
    "ALP",
    "ROS",
    "DNA fragmentation",
    "lipid peroxidation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "Exposure source is a high-voltage electric line (environmental/field setting); closest available hub among common options, though not explicitly occupational."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3390/insects12080716
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library