, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 1937–1945 | Cite as

Effects of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, on reproduction in worker bumble bees (Bombus terrestris)

  • Ian LaycockEmail author
  • Kate M. Lenthall
  • Andrew T. Barratt
  • James E. Cresswell


Bumble bees are important pollinators whose populations have declined over recent years, raising widespread concern. One conspicuous threat to bumble bees is their unintended exposure to trace residues of systemic neonicotinoid pesticides, such as imidacloprid, which are ingested when bees forage on the nectar and pollen of treated crops. However, the demographic consequences for bumble bees of exposure to dietary neonicotinoids have yet to be fully established. To determine whether environmentally realistic levels of imidacloprid are capable of making a demographic impact on bumble bees, we exposed queenless microcolonies of worker bumble bees, Bombus terrestris, to a range of dosages of dietary imidacloprid between zero and 125 μg L−1 and examined the effects on ovary development and fecundity. Microcolonies showed a dose-dependent decline in fecundity, with environmentally realistic dosages in the range of 1 μg L−1 capable of reducing brood production by one third. In contrast, ovary development was unimpaired by dietary imidacloprid except at the highest dosage. Imidacloprid reduced feeding on both syrup and pollen but, after controlling statistically for dosage, microcolonies that consumed more syrup and pollen produced more brood. We therefore speculate that the detrimental effects of imidacloprid on fecundity emerge principally from nutrient limitation imposed by the failure of individuals to feed. Our findings raise concern about the impact of neonicotinoids on wild bumble bee populations. However, we recognize that to fully evaluate impacts on wild colonies it will be necessary to establish the effect of dietary neonicotinoids on the fecundity of bumble bee queens.


Bombus terrestris microcolonies Demographic toxicology Fecundity Neonicotinoid pesticides Ovary development Sublethal effects 



We thank Dr. Hannah Florance for assistance with LC–MS analysis of imidacloprid and Roberta Hope for assistance with maintenance of microcolonies. Ian Laycock was supported by a studentship from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Andrew Barratt was supported by a summer internship from NERC.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The work reported here conforms to the regulatory requirements for animal experimentation in the UK and has been approved by the Biosciences Ethics Committee at the University of Exeter.


  1. Alaux C, Savarit F, Jaisson P, Hefetz A (2004) Does the queen win it all? Queen-worker conflict over male production in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. Naturwissenschaften 91:400–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaux C, Boutot M, Jaisson P, Hefetz A (2007) Reproductive plasticity in bumblebee workers (Bombus terrestris)—reversion from fertility to sterility under queen influence. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen-Wardell G et al (1998) The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conserv Biol 12:8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altaye SZ, Pirk CWW, Crewe RM, Nicolson SW (2010) Convergence of carbohydrate-biased intake targets in caged worker honeybees fed different protein sources. J Exp Biol 213:3311–3318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amsalem E, Twele R, Francke W, Hefetz A (2009) Reproductive competition in the bumble-bee Bombus terrestris: do workers advertise sterility? Proc R Soc B 276:1295–1304Google Scholar
  6. Ashman T-L et al (2009) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85:2408–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azevedo-Pereira HMVS, Lemos MFI, Soares AMVM (2011) Behaviour and growth of Chironomus riparius Meigen (Diptera: Chironomidae) under imidacloprid pulse and constant exposure scenarios. Water Air Soil Pollut 219:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blacquière T, Smagghe G, van Gestel CAM, Mommaerts V (2012) Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 21:973–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boggs CL (1997) Dynamics of reproductive allocation from juvenile and adult feeding: radiotracer studies. Ecology 78:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonmatin JM, Moineau I, Charvet R, Fleche C, Colin ME, Bengsch ER (2003) A LC/APCI-MS/MS method for analysis of imidacloprid in soils, in plants, and in pollens. Anal Chem 75:2027–2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonmatin JM, Marchand PA, Charvet R, Moineau I, Bengsch ER, Colin ME (2005) Quantification of imidacloprid uptake in maize crops. J Agric Food Chem 53:5336–5341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, Griswold TL (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chauzat M-P, Faucon J-P, Martel A-C, Lachaize J, Cougoule N, Aubert M (2006) A survey of pesticide residues in pollen loads collected by honey bees in France. J Econ Entomol 99:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cresswell JE (2011) A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. Ecotoxicology 20:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD (2007) Exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola has no long-term impact on honey bees. J Econ Entomol 100:765–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De la Rúa P, Jaffé R, Dall’Olio R, Muñoz I, Serrano J (2009) Biodiversity, conservation and current threats to European honeybees. Apidologie 40:263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Decourtye A, Lacassie E, Pham-Delegue MH (2003) Learning performances of honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) are differentially affected by imidacloprid according to the season. Pest Manag Sci 59:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Decourtye A, Devillers J, Cluzeau S, Charreton M, Pham-Delegue MH (2004) Effects of imidacloprid and deltamethrin on associative learning in honeybees under semi-field and laboratory conditions. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57:410–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM (2007) The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52:81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elbert A, Haas M, Springer B, Thielert W, Nauen R (2008) Applied aspects of neonicotinoid uses in crop protection. Pest Manag Sci 64:1099–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faucon J-P et al (2005) Experimental study on the toxicity of imidacloprid given in syrup to honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Pest Manag Sci 61:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forbes VE, Calow P (1999) Is the per capita rate of increase a good measure of population-level effects in ecotoxicology? Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1544–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goulson D (2003a) Conserving wild bees for crop pollination. J Food Agric Environ 1:142–144Google Scholar
  24. Goulson D (2003b) Bumblebees: their behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Goulson D, Lye GC, Darvill B (2008) Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annu Rev Entomol 53:191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grier JW (1982) Ban of DDT and subsequent recovery of reproduction in bald eagles. Science 218:1232–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hansard (2011) Neonicotinoid pesticides. House of Commons Hansard Debates. Accessed 7 Jan 2012
  28. He Y, Zhao J, Wu D, Wyckhuys KAG, Wu K (2011) Sublethal effects of imidacloprid on Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) under laboratory conditions. J Econ Entomol 104:833–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henry M et al (2012) A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336:348–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herbert IN, Svendsen C, Hankard PK, Spurgeon DJ (2004) Comparison of instantaneous rate of population increase and critical-effect estimates in Folsomia candida exposed to four toxicants. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoyle M, Hayter KE, Cresswell JE (2007) Effect of pollinator abundance on self-fertilization and gene flow: application to GM canola. Ecol Appl 17:2123–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299–314Google Scholar
  33. Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant pollinator interactions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 29:83–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klein A-M, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B 274:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krupke CH, Hunt GJ, Eitzer BD, Andino G, Given K (2012) Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS ONE 7:e29268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lambin M, Armengaud C, Raymond S, Gauthier M (2001) Imidacloprid-induced facilitation of the proboscis extension reflex habituation in the honeybee. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 48:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lopez-Vaamonde C, Koning JW, Brown RM, Jordan WC, Bourke AFG (2004) Social parasitism by male-producing reproductive workers in a eusocial insect. Nature 430:557–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manson JS, Thomson JD (2009) Post-ingestive effects of nectar alkaloids depend on dominance status of bumblebees. Ecol Entomol 34:421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matsuda K, Buckingham SD, Kleier D, Rauh JJ, Grauso M, Sattelle DB (2001) Neonicotinoids: insecticides acting on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Medler JT (1962) Morphometric studies on bumble bees. Ann Entomol Soc Am 55:212–218Google Scholar
  42. Mommaerts V, Reynders S, Boulet J, Besard L, Sterk G, Smagghe G (2010) Risk assessment for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicology 19:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morandin LA, Winston ML (2003) Effects of novel pesticides on bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colony health and foraging ability. Environ Entomol 32:555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murphy DM, Launer AE, Ehrlich PR (1983) The role of adult feeding in egg production and population dynamics of the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha. Oecologia 56:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nauen R (1995) Behaviour modifying effects of low systemic concentrations of imidacloprid on Myzus persicae with special reference to an antifeeding response. Pesticide Sci 44:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Brien DM, Schrag DP, Martinez del Rio C (2000) Allocation to reproduction in a hawkmoth: a quantitative analysis using stable carbon isotopes. Ecology 81:2822–2831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rortais A, Arnold G, Halm MP, Touffet-Briens F (2005) Modes of honeybees exposure to systemic insecticides: estimated amounts of contaminated pollen and nectar consumed by different categories of bees. Apidologie 36:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmuck R, Schoning R, Stork A, Schramel O (2001) Risk posed to honeybees (Apis mellifera L. Hymenoptera) by an imidacloprid seed dressing of sunflowers. Pest Manag Sci 57:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sur R, Stork A (2003) Uptake, translocation and metabolism of imidacloprid in plants. Bull Insectol 56:35–40Google Scholar
  51. Takino M, Tanaka T (2006) Determination of 44 pesticides in foodstuffs by LC/MS/MS. Agilent Technologies. Accessed 21 March 2012
  52. Tasei J-N, Lerin J, Ripault G (2000) Sub-lethal effects of imidacloprid on bumblebees, Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae), during a laboratory feeding test. Pest Manag Sci 56:784–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson HM, Hunt LV (1999) Extrapolating from honeybees to bumblebees in pesticide risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 8:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Engelsdorp D, Hayes J, Underwood RM, Pettis JS (2010) A survey of honey bee colony losses in the United States, fall 2008 to spring 2009. J Apic Res 49:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walthall WK, Stark JD (1997) A comparison of acute mortality and population growth rate as endpoints of toxicological effect. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 37:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webster RP, Stoffolano JG, Prokopy RJ (1979) Long-term intake of protein and sucrose in relation to reproductive behavior of wild and laboratory cultured Rhagoletis pomonella. Ann Entomol Soc Am 72:41–46Google Scholar
  57. Wheeler D (1996) The role of nourishment in oogenesis. Annu Rev Entomol 41:407–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL, Goulson D (2012) Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumblebee colony growth and queen production. Science 336:351–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams PH, Osborne JL (2009) Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. Apidologie 40:367–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Laycock
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kate M. Lenthall
    • 1
  • Andrew T. Barratt
    • 2
  • James E. Cresswell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biosciences, College of Life & Environmental SciencesUniversity of Exeter, Hatherly LaboratoriesExeterUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations