
==== Front
R Soc Open Sci
R Soc Open Sci
RSOS
royopensci
Royal Society Open Science
2054-5703
The Royal Society

rsos231798
10.1098/rsos.231798
100110011001146042Ecology, Conservation, and Global Change Biology
Research Articles
A novel insecticide impairs bumblebee memory and sucrose responsiveness across high and low nutrition
A novel insecticide impairs bumblebee memory and sucrose responsiveness across high and low nutrition
Gray Lily K. 1 † Conceptualization Data curation Methodology lilykgray@utexas.edu

Hulsey Marcus 1 2 † Conceptualization Data curation Methodology marcus.s.hulsey-1@ou.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1088-7701
Siviter Harry 1 3 Conceptualization Formal analysis Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing harry.siviter@bristol.ac.uk

1 Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin , Austin, TX 78712, USA
2 University of Oklahoma , Norman, OK 73019, USA
3 School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol , Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK
Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7158527.

† These authors contributed equally to the study.

5 2024
08 5 2024 May 8, 2024
08 5 2024 May 8, 2024
11 5 23179823 11 2023 November 23, 2023
01 2 2024 February 1, 2024
18 3 2024 March 18, 2024
© 2024 The Authors.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

Wild bees are important pollinators of crops and wildflowers but are exposed to a myriad of different anthropogenic stressors, such as pesticides and poor nutrition, as a consequence of intensive agriculture. These stressors do not act in isolation, but interact, and may exacerbate one another. Here, we assessed whether a field-realistic concentration of flupyradifurone, a novel pesticide that has been labelled as ‘bee safe’ by regulators, influenced bumblebee sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory. In a fully crossed experimental design, we exposed individual bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) to flupyradifurone at high (50% (w/w)) or low (15% (w/w)) sucrose concentrations, replicating diets that are either carbohydrate rich or poor, respectively. We found that flupyradifurone impaired sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory at both sucrose concentrations, indicating that better nutrition did not buffer the negative impact of flupyradifurone. We found no individual impact of sugar deficiency on bee behaviour and no significant interactions between pesticide exposure and poor nutrition. Our results add to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that flupyradifurone has significant negative impacts on pollinators, indicating that this pesticide is not ‘bee safe’. This suggests that agrochemical risk assessments are not protecting pollinators from the unintended consequences of pesticide use.

bee behaviour
; Bombus
; interaction effects
; pesticide
; poor nutrition
; pollinators
Stengl-Wyer Scholars Program
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Insect pollination is vital for food security and wild ecosystems. An estimated 87.5% of flowering plants, and 75% of crops, require animal pollination [1,2]. Within insects, wild bees are particularly important pollinators [3–5], but many species are undergoing range declines [6–9]. Wild bee declines are driven by a multitude of different anthropogenic stressors, including pesticide use, and loss of habitat, as a consequence of intensive agriculture [7,10–12]. Pesticide use can have both lethal [13,14] and sub-lethal [15–19] impacts on bees at field-realistic levels, which can influence bee populations [10,11]. Loss of habitat reduces floral resources which can impair bee nutrition [20]. This can alter wild bee communities, and in the worst case, lead to wild bee extirpation [20–22]. While individually, both pesticide exposure and poor nutrition can have a negative influence on bee health, they can also interact. The interactions between these stressors can be: (i) additive, where the two stressors are equal to their combined individual effect; (ii) synergistic, where the two stressors exacerbate one another and have a greater than additive effect; or (iii) antagonistic, where the impact is lower than the predicted additive effect [23]. Previous studies have found that most interactions between pesticides and poor nutrition are additive [23–26] or synergistic [13,14,27–30]. The underlying mechanism that determines the type of interaction (synergistic, additive or antagonistic) between pesticides and poor nutrition is poorly understood and requires further investigation [23].

One potential driver of synergistic interactions between pesticides and poor nutrition impacts on behaviour [23]. Bumblebees forage across a large environment collecting nectar and pollen. Foraging efficiency is important as it increases colony resource intake and reproductive output [31]. Consequently, if anthropogenic stressors influence elements of bee foraging, this may have downstream fitness consequences. Individually, exposure to certain pesticides can impair bee behaviour. For example, exposure to neonicotinoids can reduce bee sucrose sensitivity [32–35], which is directly related to foraging motivation [36]. Pesticides can also influence bee learning and memory across multiple modalities (e.g. olfactory, colour and spatial) [18,37–41], which may have downstream consequences for foraging efficiency [16,42–44]. Once more, exposure to one stressor can influence the behavioural response to another. For example, in a floral environment where nectar concentration is low, bees may visit more flowers to try and meet their nutritional requirements and consequently consume more pesticides [13,29]. By contrast, bees exposed to certain pesticides (e.g. neonicotinoids and sulfoxaflor) respond by reducing nectar consumption that leads to a sugar deficiency [45–48]. However, our understanding of the behavioural response of bees to a combination of pesticides and poor nutrition remains relatively unexplored [23].

Here, in a fully crossed experimental design, we assess the combined and individual impact of (i) the novel insecticide flupyradifurone, and (ii) poor nutrition on bumblebee (Bombus impatiens) sucrose sensitivity and long-term memory. Flupyradifurone is a butanolide insecticide and has a similar mode of action to neonicotinoids, targeting nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) [49]. However, owing to differences in their structural activity relationships, flupyradifurone is in a distinct chemical class from neonicotinoids [49]. Flupyradifurone is also systemic and consequently has a number of different applications (e.g. foliar spray, seed treatment or soil drench) and can be present in both the nectar and pollen of treated crops [50]. It is thought by regulators (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency) to pose a low threat to bees and so can be used on bee-visited crops while they are flowering [50]. Despite this, exposure to flupyradifurone at field-realistic concentrations can increase honeybee mortality [51–53] and impair behaviour, influencing learning, memory, thermoregulation, flight and sucrose sensitivity at field-realistic concentrations ([29,51,53,54]; recently reviewed in [55]). Less is known about the impact of flupyradifurone on non-Apis bees, but acute exposure to the pesticide can impair bumblebee (B. impatiens) learning and memory [38], and chronic exposure can harm bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) colony growth [56]. Exposure to Sivanto, a chemical formulation containing flupyradifurone, can also have both lethal and sub-lethal impacts on solitary bees [14,57,58].

In this experiment, we defined poor nutrition as sugar deficiency [59]. Foraging bees collect nectar as their primary source of carbohydrate [60]. Crops and wildflowers range in both the concentration and volume of nectar they contain, and bees aim to maximize their foraging efficiency by visiting the most profitable flowers [61]. However, intensive agriculture reduces floral abundance, and consequently, bees may consume more nectar from a mass flowering crop which contains lower concentrations of nectar [62]. However, even if the volume of nectar consumed by bees increases, the amount of sugar they consume is limited by their capacity to process water [13,63]. This means that even when bumblebees are provided with an ad libitum supply of sucrose solution at lower concentrations (e.g. 15% (w/w)) there are still negative consequences on physiology, and fecundity, demonstrating the bees are nutritionally stressed [59,64]. We hypothesized that exposure to flupyradifurone would impair bumblebee behaviour and that negative synergistic interactions would occur when bees were exposed to both the pesticide and lower sucrose concentrations.

2. Methods

2.1. General protocol

To assess the impact of flupyradifurone and poor nutrition on both sucrose responsiveness (experiment 1) and long-term memory (experiment 2) we used a modified version of a free-moving proboscis extension reflex protocol (figure 1) [[38,65,66]]. Six bumblebee (B. impatiens) colonies (four for experiment 1 and two for experiment 2) were purchased (Koppert Biological Systems, Oxnard, CA, USA) and housed under laboratory conditions. Colonies were provided with an ad libitum supply of 50% (w/w) sucrose solution that bees could access from a wick in a plastic tube that was connected to the colony. Colonies were supplemented with honeybee-collected pollen (Koppert Biological Systems), which was poured directly into the colony boxes (1 tbsp every 2–3 days).

Figure 1. Timeline for experiment 1 (sucrose responsiveness) and experiment 2 (long-term memory retention). (Schematics demonstrate test phase of each experiment.)

Timeline for experiment 1 (sucrose responsiveness) and experiment 2 (long-term memory retention).

Bees were collected from colonies either with forceps (experiment 1) or with a bee vacuum (experiment 2) and placed directly into individual transparent plastic rectangular tubes (figure 1). In experiment 1 (sucrose responsiveness), we immediately inserted a glass tube containing an ad libitum supply of sucrose with the relevant pesticide and sucrose concentrations (see below for treatment details). In experiment 2 (long-term memory retention), bees were first trained to identify a rewarding colour stimulus (see below for details) before a glass tube containing the relevant treatment solution was added. In both experiments, bees were left for 24 h with the treatment concentrations before testing began. After 24 h, we removed the glass tubes, and recorded sucrose consumption with callipers [46]. From each sucrose consumption measurement, we subtracted the mean evaporation control from across the experiment (experiment 1 n = 25 and experiment 2 n = 40). After testing, all bees were placed in the freezer and we recorded their intertegular distance with callipers as a proxy for body size [67].

2.2. Pesticide and sucrose concentrations

Bees were provided with an ad libitum supply of sucrose from one of four treatments: (i) control, 50% (w/w) sucrose; (ii) control, 15% (w/w) sucrose; (iii) flupyradifurone (4 ppm) + 50% (w/w) sucrose; and (iv) flupyradifurone (4 ppm) + 15% (w/w) sucrose.

We based our pesticide exposure regime (4 ppm) on the concentration found in the nectar of honeybees foraging on winter-sown oilseed rape (Brassica napus) that had been treated with both seed and foliar applications of flupyradifurone (10 g ai/kg seed; 0.28 lbs/A foliar spray prior to sowing and 2 × 0.18 lbs ai/A during early and full flowering) [50]. The highest concentration found in the nectar of foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera) was 4.3 ppm and reached as high as 21 ppm in honeybee-collected pollen. The residue levels found in flowers ranged between 0.8 and 36 ppm. Given these high concentrations, our exposure regime (4 ppm) is probably an underestimate of a worst case but field-realistic scenario. We combined flupyradifurone (powder form, analytical standard from Chem Service, Pennsylvania, PA, USA) with water to create a stock solution that was added to the relevant sucrose solution (either 15% or 50% (w/w)) to create a 4 ppm solution. This solution was subset and frozen in Eppendorf’s and defrosted on the day of experiment to reduce degradation.

The low (15% (w/w)) and high (50% (w/w)) sucrose concentrations were chosen to represent a range of different nectar concentrations from bee-visited crops and wildflowers (reviewed in [68,69]). The nectar concentration of oilseed rape (which the pesticide concentration was based on) changes from approximately 30% (30 g 100 ml-1) at the start of flowering to approximately 10% (10 g/100 ml) at the end of flowering [70]. However, nectar concentrations of crops and wildflowers can be significantly lower or higher than this range. A recent review that surveyed flowers from 322 crops, wildflowers and weeds, found that concentrations of nectar ranged from 6.3% to 85% (w/w) [69]. We chose 50% as this concentration is (i) a high concentration of nectar found in bee-attractive crops, and (ii) because it is the concentration typically used in laboratory experiments that are incorporated into environmental risk assessments [71]. Fifteen per cent was chosen because it represents a low, but field-realistic concentration of nectar that is relevant to oilseed rape and other bee-attractive crops [69,70].

2.3. Experiment 1: sucrose responsiveness

We placed 144 bees in tubes. After 24 h, we removed the glass tubes containing the treatment solutions and starved bees for 2 h. Twenty-nine bees did not survive the exposure period (control 15% n = 9, control 50% n = 6, treatment 15% n = 8 and treatment 50% n = 6), 18 bees did not consume any of the sucrose solutions (control 15% n = 1, control 50% n = 4, treatment 15% n = 4 and treatment 50% n = 9), eight bees escaped, and the wick was pulled out of the glass tubes in three trials which meant we could not measure sucrose consumption. To test sucrose responsiveness, we dipped a strip of paper (dark yellow) in sucrose solution and used it to stimulate the bees’ antennae for 3 s (figure 1). In the first trial, we presented bees with just water. In each subsequent trial, we presented a sucrose solution in ascending concentrations from 5% (w/w) sucrose in the first trial up to 50% (w/w) in the final trial (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50% sucrose (w/w)). We tested an individual bee in quick succession [66], and in between each trial, we presented the bees with water [72]. We recorded a positive response when the bee extended her proboscis when stimulated with the sucrose solution. When a bee did extend her proboscis, she was allowed to feed on the sucrose for 3 s. We were unable to test four bees owing to aggressive behaviour, so our final sample sizes were 82 bees (control 15% n = 23, control 50% n = 21, treatment 15% n = 22 and treatment 50% n = 16).

2.4. Experiment 2: long-term memory

We placed individual bees (n =133) in tubes and starved them for 2 h. We trained each bee through absolute conditioning to associate a coloured stimulus with a sucrose solution (50% (w/w)). A coloured stimulus (either a dark blue or dark yellow coloured strip of card), was dipped in 50% (w/w) sucrose solution and used to stimulate the antenna of each bee for 3 s (CS+). As we used absolute conditioning to train the bees, only one colour was presented to each bee in the training phase. We repeated this process five times per bee, with an inter-trial interval of 10 min. If a bee did not extend her proboscis in response to the sucrose, we terminated their training (n = 10). The colour of the CS+ (either dark blue or yellow) was counterbalanced between bees. Immediately after training a glass tube containing an ad libitum supply of the relevant sucrose solution was inserted into the tube (see above).

We removed the treatment solutions after 24 h and starved the bees for 3 h. Sixteen bees had not consumed the sucrose (control 15% n = 3, 50% control n = 4, treatment 15% n = 2 and treatment 50% n = 7), two bees had escaped and 27 had died (control 15% n = 5, 50% control n = 9, treatment 15% n = 8 and treatment 50% n = 5). We then presented each bee with a droplet of 10 µl 50% (w/w) sucrose to stimulate foraging behaviour before testing began. To test long-term memory (defined as >24 h in honeybees [73]) we presented each bee with both stimuli (the CS+ and the unknown stimulus) for a maximum number of six trials (figure 1). Both strips had been dipped in water. We recorded a positive response if the bee approached and either antennated or extended their proboscis in response to the CS+. In order to maintain foraging motivation, the six trials were conducted in quick succession. The subsequent trial started immediately after a response from the bumblebee [66]. Most bees completed all six trials, but a subset (n = 10) completed less (mean number of trials = 5.57 ± s.d. 1.1). We therefore present the data as the proportion of correct choices made by each bee across the number of completed trials (see §2.5 for further details). Two bees were not motivated to approach either stimuli and were assumed to be unmotivated and removed from the experiment. Our final sample size was 76 bees (control 15% n = 20, control 50% n = 18, treatment 15% n = 22 and treatment 50% n = 16).

2.5. Statistical analysis

We used an information-theoretic model selection approach. We created a full model containing all the measured factors and created every possible subset of the full model and used Akaike information criterion for small sample size (AICc) values to determine the best model fit. In cases, when there was more than one model with an AICc value of less than 2, we used model averaging. For a list of all models used and all outputs produced, see the electronic supplementary material, tables S1 and S2. Each analysis was conducted in R (v.4.3.0). We used the packages lme4 and MuMIn [74,75].

2.5.1. Experiment 1: sucrose responsiveness

To assess sucrose responsiveness, we analysed whether bees responded positively to each presented sucrose concentration [76]. A positive response was coded as ’1’ and an unresponsive bee as ‘0’. We used generalized linear mixed effect models with the colony and bee identity included as random factors. The full model contained pesticide (presence or absence), nutrition (15 or 50% (w/w) sucrose), bee size (intertegular distance), sucrose concentration tested (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50%), two-way interactions between: (i) pesticide and sugar concentration tested; (ii) nutrition and sucrose concentration tested; (iii) pesticide and nutrition; and (iv) a three-way interaction between pesticide, nutrition and sucrose concentration tested.

2.5.2. Experiment 2: long-term memory

To assess whether exposure to the treatment solutions influenced long-term memory, we analysed the proportion of correct approaches to the CS+. We used generalized linear mixed-effect models with a binomial distribution. The full model included pesticide, nutrition, bee size, CS+ colour and the interaction between pesticide and nutrition. Colony was also included as a random factor. As sensitivity analysis to ensure that extinction was not occurring, we conducted a follow-up analysis that analysed the interaction between test response and test number (1–6) and found no significant effect (test number: parameter estimate (PE) = −0.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = −0.08 to 0.06).

2.5.3. Sucrose consumption

For (i) sucrose solution (µl), and (ii) total sucrose (g) consumed in both experiments 1 and 2 (see above), we used linear mixed-effect models with pesticide, nutrition, bee size, the interaction between pesticide and nutrition all included in the full model, and colony included as a random factor.

3. Results

3.1. Experiment 1: sucrose responsiveness

We found that exposure to flupyradifurone impaired bumblebee sucrose responsiveness, but poor nutrition did not (figure 2; pesticide: PE = −4.68, CI = −7.59 to −1.77; nutrition: PE = 1.92, CI = −1.31 to 3.91). The interaction between the pesticide and nutrition was additive as opposed to synergistic or antagonistic (pesticide:nutrition: PE = −0.33, CI = −2.63 to 1.97). Unsurprisingly, the concentration of sucrose presented to the bees also influenced the likelihood of a positive response (sucrose concentration: PE = 0.12, CI = 0.09 to 0.16). Bee size did not influence sucrose responsiveness (electronic supplementary material, tables S1 and S2).

Figure 2. The proportion of bees (±s.e.) extending their proboscis in response to the sucrose concentration presented (control 15%, n = 23; control 50%, n = 21; treatment 15%, n = 22; treatment 50%, n = 16) (pesticide: PE = −4.68, CI = −7.59 to −1.77; nutrition: PE = 1.92, CI = −1.31 to 3.91; pesticide:nutrition: PE = −0.33, CI = −2.63 to 1.97).

The proportion of bees (±s.e.) extending their proboscis in response to the sucrose concentration presented

3.2. Experiment 2: long-term memory

Flupyradifurone significantly impaired bumblebee long-term memory, but we found no impact of poor nutrition (figure 3; pesticide: PE = −2.86, CI = −4.17 to −1.56, nutrition: PE = 0.08, CI = −0.56 to 0.72). There was no significant interaction between pesticide and nutrition, suggesting an additive interaction (figure 3; electronic supplementary material, table S1, model with pesticide:nutrition AICc >2). Neither the colour of the CS+ nor the bee size influenced long-term memory (electronic supplementary material, tables S1 and S2).

Figure 3. The mean (±s.e.) proportion of bees that chose the CS+. Grey dots are the results from individual bees (control 15%, n = 20; control 50%, n = 18; treatment 15%, n = 22; treatment 50%, n = 16) (pesticide: PE = −2.86, CI = −4.17 to −1.56; nutrition: PE = 0.08, CI = −0.56 to 0.72; pesticide:nutrition: AICc >2).

The mean (±s.e.) proportion of bees that chose the CS+.

3.3. Sucrose consumption

We found no significant effect of pesticide or nutrition on the amount of sucrose solution (µl) consumed over 24 h in either experiment 1 or experiment 2 (figure 4a,b; electronic supplementary material, table S1: experiment 1, models with pesticide or poor nutrition, AICc >2; experiment 2, models with pesticide or poor nutrition, AICc >2). Larger bees consumed more sucrose across both experiments (electronic supplementary material, table S2). We did find significant differences in the total amount of sucrose (g) consumed between treatment groups in both experiments (figure 4c,d). Nutrition influenced the amount of sugar consumed by bees in both experiments (figure 4c; experiment 1, nutrition: PE = −0.09, CI = −0.11 to −0.06; figure 4d; experiment 2, nutrition: PE = −0.17, CI = −0.21 to −0.14), but there was no effect of pesticide, and no significant interaction between poor nutrition and pesticide (AICc >2; electronic supplementary material, tables S1 and S2).

Figure 4. The mean (±s.e.) amount of sucrose solution (µl) (a and b) and sucrose (g) (c and d) consumed by individual bumblebees over 24 h before testing in (a and c) experiment 1 (sucrose sensitivity testing) and (b and d) experiment 2 (long-term memory testing). Grey dots indicate the result from individual bees. (a and c): control 15%, n = 23; control 50%, n = 21; treatment 15%, n = 22; treatment 50%, n = 16; (b and d): control 15%, n = 20; control 50%, n = 18; treatment 15%, n = 22, treatment 50%, n = 16. Experiments 1 and 2: sucrose solution (µl) consumed; any model containing pesticide, nutrition and pesticide:nutrition AICc >2. Experiment 1: sucrose (g) consumed, nutrition: PE = −0.09, CI = −0.11 to −0.06; models containing pesticide and nutrition: pesticide AICc >2. Experiment 2: sucrose (g) consumed, nutrition: PE = −0.17, CI = −0.21 to −0.14, models containing pesticide and nutrition:pesticide AICc >2.

The mean (±s.e.) amount of sucrose solution (µl) (a and b) and sucrose (g) (c and d) consumed by individual bumblebees over 24 h before testing

4. Discussion

We found that exposure to flupyradifurone at field-realistic concentrations impaired bumblebee sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory. These negative effects occurred when bees were nutritionally poor or healthy, indicating that higher sugar intake did not buffer the negative consequences of pesticide exposure. Poor nutrition did result in sugar deficiency, but we found no evidence that this influenced bumblebee behaviour. The interactions between exposure to the pesticide and poor nutrition were additive (rather than synergistic or antagonistic) but were of little consequence as sucrose concentration had no observable impact on bumblebee behaviour. The negative impact of flupyradifurone exposure on both sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory is similar to those observed with neonicotinoids [18,33]. This suggests that, at least in relation to bumblebee behaviour, banning one group of pesticides will not protect pollinators from the negative impacts of pesticides without simultaneous improvements to agrochemical risk assessment [55,77].

Flupyradifurone has been termed ‘bee safe’ by regulators, and so can be used on bee-visited crops while they are flowering [50]. Despite this, previous studies have found that flupyradifurone can impair bee behaviour [55]. For example, exposure to flupyradifurone can impair olfactory learning in Asian honeybees (Apis cerana) at field-realistic concentrations [51], and acute exposure to flupyradifurone can also impair bumblebee olfactory/colour learning and memory [38]. Here, we found that bumblebees exposed to flupyradifurone responded positively to 50% sucrose in 26.3% of trials compared with 65.9% in control groups. We also found that in a long-term memory test, bumblebees exposed to the flupyradifurone responded correctly in 53.2% of trials, compared with 77.1% in control bees. In contrast to this, exposure to field-realistic concentrations of flupyradifurone does not appear to influence sucrose responsiveness and learning in western honeybees (A. mellifera) [78]. It is unclear why there are species-level differences in how flupyradifurone influences bee behaviour, but honeybees (A. mellifera) are often more robust to pesticide exposure than wild bees [10]. Our data add to a growing body of evidence indicating that honeybees are not a representative model species for pesticide risk assessments [77,79].

Pollen consumption and composition can influence bee behaviour [80–82], but less is known about the behavioural and cognitive consequences of lower carbohydrate intake by bumblebees. Here, we found no evidence that sugar deficiency impairs bumblebee sucrose responsiveness or long-term memory. In one of the few studies to assess the impact of sugar deficiency on insect learning, wasps (Venturia canescens) fed honey performed better in an olfactory learning task compared with those fed sucrose solution (20% (w/w)) [83]. Honey, however, contains more nutrients (e.g. amino acids and minerals) than just sucrose which could drive the observed differences in learning [83]. While we found no evidence to suggest that sugar deficiency influences the behaviour of adult bumblebees over 24 h, the impact of long-term low carbohydrate intake on pollinator behaviour is still relatively unexplored and warrants further research.

Poor nutrition can make bees more vulnerable to pesticide exposure, but most previous research has focused on the interactions between pesticides and pollen intake, or floral diversity [24–27,84–86]. We found that flupyradifurone impaired sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory when bumblebees were nutritionally stressed and healthy, indicating that higher carbohydrate intake did not buffer the negative consequences of pesticide exposure [30]. This is not surprising as negative effects of pesticides on bees regularly occur even when bees are fed high sucrose concentrations [41,45,87]. Indeed, 50% (w/w) sucrose solution is used as a standard concentration in pesticide risk assessment [62]. Contrary to what we expected, we found no significant interaction between nutrition and pesticides in relation to bee behaviour. The sub-lethal effects of pesticides are correlated with dose, and we had predicted that bees fed 15% (w/w) sucrose would consume more than those fed 50% (w/w), which would have increased the dose of pesticide they consumed [13]. However, we found no significant differences in the amount of sucrose solution consumed between bees from different treatment groups. This was probably caused by bees not being able to store sucrose in their nest, which limited consumption. Despite this, bees in the 15% (w/w) groups consumed less total sugar, which can impair bumblebee fitness [13,64]. Future studies that chronically expose whole colonies to a combination of pesticides and poor nutrition are required to better understand these key interactions. However, given that the interactions between poor nutrition and pesticide exposure can have significant negative impacts on wild bee fitness [23–27,84–86,88], incorporating these key interactions into pesticide risk assessment should be a priority for policymakers interested in creating a more holistic, and field-realistic regulatory process [55,77].

Our results demonstrate that despite being labelled as ‘bee safe’, flupyradifurone had a significant negative effect on bumblebee sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory. These data add to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that novel insecticides such as flupyradifurone, which could replace neonicotinoid use over a large geographical area, have significant negative consequences on pollinators [14,55,89–92]. In the short term, regulators should restrict flupyradifurone use to non-flowering crops, while a re-assessment of its potential risk to pollinators can be re-evaluated. Ultimately, our results, and those that came before [14,55,89–92], have demonstrated that pesticide risk assessments globally are failing to protect bees from the unintended consequences of pesticide use. Consequently, banning or restricting the use of certain agrochemicals (e.g. neonicotinoids in the European Union and United Kingdom) will not protect bees from the negative impacts of pesticide use without concurrent changes to environmental risk assessment [55,77,93–95].

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Felicity Muth for providing laboratory space and materials as well as helpful comments during the development of this project. We would also like to thank Christoph Grüter for comments made on a draft of the manuscript. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for comments made on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Ethics

This work did not require ethical approval from a human subject or animal welfare committee.

Data accessibility

All data will be available online via OSF [96].

Electronic supplementary material is also available online [97].

Declaration of AI use

We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.

Authors’ contributions

L.K.G.: conceptualization, data curation, methodology; M.H.: conceptualization, data curation, methodology; H.S.: conceptualization, formal analysis, project administration, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding

H.S. was funded by the Stengl-Wyer Scholars Program. M.H. was funded by the InSTInCT programme at the University of Texas, at Austin.
==== Refs
References

1. Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S. 2011 How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120 , 321–326. (10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x)
2. Klein AM, 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 , 303–313. (10.1098/rspb.2006.3721)
3. Garibaldi LA et al . 2013 Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339 , 1608–1611. (10.1126/science.1230200)23449997
4. Rader R et al . 2016 Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 146–151. (10.1073/pnas.1517092112)26621730
5. Greenleaf SS, Kremen C. 2006 Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103 , 13890–13895. (10.1073/pnas.0600929103)16940358
6. Zattara EE, Aizen MA. 2021 Worldwide occurrence records suggest a global decline in bee species richness. One Earth 4 , 114–123. (10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.005)
7. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE. 2010 Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25 , 345–353. (10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007)20188434
8. Powney GD, Carvell C, Edwards M, Morris RKA, Roy HE, Woodcock BA, Isaac NJB. 2019 Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1018. (10.1038/s41467-019-08974-9)30914632
9. Biesmeijer JC et al . 2006 Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and The Netherlands. Science 313 , 351–354. (10.1126/science.1127863)16857940
10. Rundlöf M et al . 2015 Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521 , 77–80. (10.1038/nature14420)25901681
11. Woodcock BA, Isaac NJB, Bullock JM, Roy DB, Garthwaite DG, Crowe A, Pywell RF. 2016 Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat. Commun. 7 , 12459. (10.1038/ncomms12459)27529661
12. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL. 2015 Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347 , 1255957. (10.1126/science.1255957)25721506
13. Linguadoca A, Rizzi C, Villa S, Brown MJF. 2021 Sulfoxaflor and nutritional deficiency synergistically reduce survival and fecundity in bumblebees. Sci. Total Environ. 795 , 148680. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148680)34247092
14. Knauer AC et al . 2022 Nutritional stress exacerbates impact of a novel insecticide on solitary bees’ behaviour, reproduction and survival. Proc. R. Soc. B 289 , 20221013. (10.1098/rspb.2022.1013)
15. Siviter H, Richman SK, Muth F. 2021 Field-realistic neonicotinoid exposure has sub-lethal effects on non-Apis bees: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 24 , 2586–2597. (10.1111/ele.13873)34488245
16. Gill RJ, Ramos-Rodriguez O, Raine NE. 2012 Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491 , 105–108. (10.1038/nature11585)23086150
17. Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL, Goulson D. 2012 Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336 , 351–352. (10.1126/science.1215025)22461500
18. Siviter H, Koricheva J, Brown MJF, Leadbeater E. 2018 Quantifying the impact of pesticides on learning and memory in bees. J. Appl. Ecol. 55 , 2812–2821. (10.1111/1365-2664.13193)30449899
19. Main AR, Webb EB, Goyne KW, Mengel D. 2018 Neonicotinoid insecticides negatively affect performance measures of non-target terrestrial arthropods: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 28 , 1232–1244. (10.1002/eap.1723)29603486
20. Vaudo AD, Tooker JF, Grozinger CM, Patch HM. 2015 Bee nutrition and floral resource restoration. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 10 133–141, (10.1016/j.cois.2015.05.008)29588000
21. Carvell C et al . 2017 Bumblebee family lineage survival is enhanced in high-quality landscapes. Nature 543 , 547–549. (10.1038/nature21709)28297711
22. Vaudo AD, Dyer LA, Leonard AS. 2024 Pollen nutrition structures bee and plant community interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121 , e2317228120. (10.1073/pnas.2317228120)38190523
23. Siviter H, Bailes EJ, Martin CD, Oliver TR, Koricheva J, Leadbeater E, Brown MJF. 2021 Agrochemicals interact synergistically to increase bee mortality. Nature 596 , 389–392. (10.1038/s41586-021-03787-7)34349259
24. Dance C, Botías C, Goulson D. 2017 The combined effects of a monotonous diet and exposure to thiamethoxam on the performance of bumblebee micro-colonies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 139 194–201, (10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.01.041)28135666
25. Stuligross C, Williams NM. 2021 Past insecticide exposure reduces bee reproduction and population growth rate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2109909118. (10.1073/pnas.2109909118)34810261
26. Stuligross C, Williams NM. 2020 Pesticide and resource stressors additively impair wild bee reproduction. Proc. R. Soc. B 287 , 20201390. (10.1098/rspb.2020.1390)
27. Ingwell LL, Ternest JJ, Pecenka JR, Kaplan I. 2021 Supplemental forage ameliorates the negative impact of insecticides on bumblebees in a pollinator-dependent crop. Proc. R. Soc. B 288 , 20210785. (10.1098/rspb.2021.0785)
28. Tosi S, Nieh JC, Sgolastra F, Cabbri R, Medrzycki P. 2017 Neonicotinoid pesticides and nutritional stress synergistically reduce survival in honey bees. Proc. R. Soc. B 284 , 20171711. (10.1098/rspb.2017.1711)
29. Tong L, Nieh JC, Tosi S. 2019 Combined nutritional stress and a new systemic pesticide (flupyradifurone, Sivanto®) reduce bee survival, food consumption, flight success, and thermoregulation. Chemosphere 237 , 124408. (10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124408)31356997
30. Cecala JM, Baronia DA, Wilson Rankin EE. 2020 Sugar content of diet does not buffer against chronic oral imidacloprid exposure in the alfalfa leafcutting bee (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 113 , 2705–2712. (10.1093/jee/toaa194)33001178
31. Vaudo AD, Farrell LM, Patch HM, Grozinger CM, Tooker JF. 2018 Consistent pollen nutritional intake drives bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) colony growth and reproduction across different habitats. Ecol. Evol. 8 , 5765–5776. (10.1002/ece3.4115)29938091
32. Démares FJ, Crous KL, Pirk CWW, Nicolson SW, Human H. 2016 Sucrose sensitivity of honey bees is differently affected by dietary protein and a neonicotinoid pesticide. PLoS ONE 11 , e0156584. (10.1371/journal.pone.0156584)27272274
33. Démares FJ, Pirk CWW, Nicolson SW, Human H 2018 Neonicotinoids decrease sucrose responsiveness of honey bees at first contact. J. Insect Physiol. 108 , 25–30. (10.1016/j.jinsphys.2018.05.004)29775568
34. Eiri DM, Nieh JC 2012 A nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist affects honey bee sucrose responsiveness and decreases waggle dancing. J. Exp. Biol. 215 , 2022–2029. (10.1242/jeb.068718)22623190
35. Aliouane Y, El Hassani AK, Gary V, Armengaud C, Lambin M, Gauthier M 2009 Subchronic exposure of honeybees to sublethal doses of pesticides: effects on behavior. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28 , 113–122. (10.1897/08-110.1)18700810
36. Scheiner R, Page RE, Erber J. 2004 Sucrose responsiveness and behavioral plasticity in honey bees (Apis mellifera) . Apidologie 35 , 133–142. (10.1051/apido:2004001)
37. Muth F, Francis JS, Leonard AS. 2019 Modality-specific impairment of learning by a neonicotinoid pesticide. Biol. Lett. 15 , 20190359. (10.1098/rsbl.2019.0359)31362607
38. Siviter H, Muth F. 2022 Exposure to the novel insecticide flupyradifurone impairs bumblebee feeding motivation, learning, and memory retention. Environ. Pollut. 307 , 119575. (10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119575)35691445
39. Samuelson EEW, Chen-Wishart ZP, Gill RJ, Leadbeater E. 2016 Effect of acute pesticide exposure on bee spatial working memory using an analogue of the radial-arm maze. Sci. Rep. 6 , 38957. (10.1038/srep38957)27958350
40. Smith DB, Arce AN, Ramos Rodrigues A, Bischoff PH, Burris D, Ahmed F, Gill RJ. 2020 Insecticide exposure during brood or early-adult development reduces brain growth and impairs adult learning in bumblebees. Proc. R. Soc. B 287 , 20192442. (10.1098/rspb.2019.2442)
41. Stanley DA, Smith KE, Raine NE. 2015 Bumblebee learning and memory is impaired by chronic exposure to a neonicotinoid pesticide. Sci. Rep. 5 , 16508. (10.1038/srep16508)26568480
42. Feltham H, Park K, Goulson D. 2014 Field realistic doses of pesticide imidacloprid reduce bumblebee pollen foraging efficiency. Ecotoxicology 23 , 317–323. (10.1007/s10646-014-1189-7)24448674
43. Gill RJ, Raine NE. 2014 Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behaviour induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Funct. Ecol. 28 , 1459–1471. (10.1111/1365-2435.12292)
44. Siviter H, Johnson AK, Muth F. 2021 Bumblebees exposed to a neonicotinoid pesticide make suboptimal foraging decisions. Environ. Entomol. 50 , 1299–1303. (10.1093/ee/nvab087)34487150
45. Siviter H, Horner J, Brown MJF, Leadbeater E. 2020 Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces egg laying in bumblebees Bombus terrestris J. Appl. Ecol. 57 , 160–169. (10.1111/1365-2664.13519)32055075
46. Muth F, Gaxiola RL, Leonard AS. 2020 No evidence for neonicotinoid preferences in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens R. Soc. Open Sci. 7 , 191883. (10.1098/rsos.191883)32537195
47. Laycock I, Lenthall KM, Barratt AT, Cresswell JE. 2012 Erratum to: Effects of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, on reproduction in worker bumble bees (Bombus terrestris). Ecotoxicology 21 , 1946–1946. (10.1007/s10646-012-0974-4)
48. Kessler SC, Tiedeken EJ, Simcock KL, Derveau S, Mitchell J, Softley S, Radcliffe A, Stout JC, Wright GA. 2015 Bees prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides. Nature 521 , 74–76. (10.1038/nature14414)25901684
49. Nauen R et al . 2015 Flupyradifurone: a brief profile of a new butenolide insecticide. Pest Manag. Sci. 71 , 850–862. (10.1002/ps.3932)25351824
50. EPA. 2014 Environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for foliar, soil drench, and seed treatment uses of the new insecticide flupyradifurone (BYI 02960).
51. Tan K, Wang C, Dong S, Li X, Nieh JC. 2017 The pesticide flupyradifurone impairs olfactory learning in Asian honey bees (Apis cerana) exposed as larvae or as adults. Sci. Rep. 7 , 17772. (10.1038/s41598-017-18060-z)29259229
52. Al Naggar Y, Baer B. 2019 Consequences of a short time exposure to a sublethal dose of flupyradifurone (Sivanto) pesticide early in life on survival and immunity in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Sci. Rep. 9 , 19753. (10.1038/s41598-019-56224-1)31874994
53. Tosi S, Nieh JC. 2019 Lethal and sublethal synergistic effects of a new systemic pesticide, flupyradifurone (Sivanto®), on honeybees. Proc. R. Soc. B 286 , 20190433. (10.1098/rspb.2019.0433)
54. Hesselbach H, Seeger J, Schilcher F, Ankenbrand M, Scheiner R. 2020 Chronic exposure to the pesticide flupyradifurone can lead to premature onset of foraging in honeybees Apis mellifera. J. Appl. Ecol. 57 , 609–618. (10.1111/1365-2664.13555)
55. Siviter H, Muth F. 2020 Do novel insecticides pose a threat to beneficial insects? Proc. R. Soc. B 287 , 20201265. (10.1098/rspb.2020.1265)
56. Fischer LR, Ramesh D, Weidenmüller A. 2023 Sub-lethal but potentially devastating—the novel insecticide flupyradifurone impairs collective brood care in bumblebees. Sci. Total Environ. 903 , 166097. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166097)37562619
57. Boff S, Ayasse M. 2023 Exposure to sublethal concentration of flupyradifurone alters sexual behavior and cuticular hydrocarbon profile in Heriades truncorum, an oligolectic solitary bee. Insect Sci. 1–11. (10.1111/1744-7917.13268)
58. Rondeau S, Raine NE. 2024 Single and combined exposure to ‘bee safe’ pesticides alter behaviour and offspring production in a ground-nesting solitary bee ( Xenoglossa pruinosa. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci 291 . (10.1098/rspb.2023.2939)
59. Linguadoca A et al . 2022 Intra-specific variation in sensitivity of Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis to three pesticides. Sci. Rep. 12 , 17311. (10.1038/s41598-022-22239-4)36243795
60. Leach ME, Drummond F. 2018 A review of native wild bee nutritional Health. Int. J. Ecol. 2018 , 1–10. (10.1155/2018/9607246)
61. Heinrich B. 2004 Bumblebee economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62. European Food Safety Authority. 2013 EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA J 11 , 3295. (10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295)
63. Brown M, Brown MJF. 2020 Nectar preferences in male bumblebees. Insect. Soc. 67 , 221–228. (10.1007/s00040-020-00751-y)
64. Woodard SH, Duennes MA, Watrous KM, Jha S. 2019 Diet and nutritional status during early adult life have immediate and persistent effects on queen bumble bees. Conserv. Physiol. 7 , coz048. (10.1093/conphys/coz048)32802333
65. Muth F, Cooper TR, Bonilla RF, Leonard AS. 2018 A novel protocol for studying bee cognition in the wild. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9 , 78–87. (10.1111/2041-210X.12852)
66. Muth F. 2021 Intra-specific differences in cognition: bumblebee queens learn better than workers. Biol. Lett. 17 , 20210280. (10.1098/rsbl.2021.0280)34376073
67. Cane JH. 1987 Estimation of bee size using intertegular span (Apoidea). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc.. 60 , 145–147.
68. Knopper LD, Dan T, Reisig DD, Johnson JD, Bowers LM. 2016 Sugar concentration in nectar: a quantitative metric of crop attractiveness for refined pollinator risk assessments. Pest Manag. Sci. 72 , 1807–1812. (10.1002/ps.4321)27197566
69. Pamminger T, Becker R, Himmelreich S, Schneider CW, Bergtold M. 2019 The nectar report: quantitative review of nectar sugar concentrations offered by bee visited flowers in agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes. PeerJ 7 , e6329. (10.7717/peerj.6329)30834180
70. Pierre J, Mesquida J, Marilleau R, Pham‐Delègue MH, Renard M. 1999 Nectar secretion in winter oilseed rape, Brassica napus—quantitative and qualitative variability among 71 genotypes. Plant Breeding 118 , 471–476. (10.1046/j.1439-0523.1999.00421.x)
71. Siviter H, Matthews AJ, Brown MJF. 2022 A combined LD50 for agrochemicals and pathogens in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Environ. Entomol. 51 , 378–384. (10.1093/ee/nvab139)35021185
72. Page RE, Erber J, Fondrk MK. 1998 The effect of genotype on response thresholds to sucrose and foraging behavior of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J. Comp. Physiol. A 182 , 489–500. (10.1007/s003590050196)9565478
73. Menzel R. 2012 The honeybee as a model for understanding the basis of cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13 , 758–768. (10.1038/nrn3357)23080415
74. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67 , 51. (10.18637/jss.v067.i01)
75. Barton K. 2016 MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.15.6. See https://cran.r-project.org/package=MuMIn
76. Muth F, Breslow E, Leonard AS. 2023 Octopamine affects gustatory responsiveness and may enhance learning in bumble bees. Apidologie 54 , 9. (10.1007/s13592-023-00992-3)
77. Siviter H, Linguadoca A, Ippolito A, Muth F. 2023 Pesticide licensing in the EU and protecting pollinators. Curr. Biol. 33 , R44–R48. (10.1016/j.cub.2022.12.002)36693303
78. Bell HC, Benavides JE, Montgomery CN, Navratil JRE, Nieh JC. 2020 The novel butenolide pesticide flupyradifurone does not alter responsiveness to sucrose at either acute or chronic short-term field-realistic doses in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Pest Manag. Sci. 76 , 111–117. (10.1002/ps.5554)31309692
79. Franklin EL, Raine NE. 2019 Moving beyond honeybee-centric pesticide risk assessments to protect all pollinators. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 1373–1375. (10.1038/s41559-019-0987-y)31527730
80. Arien Y, Dag A, Zarchin S, Masci T, Shafir S. 2015 Omega-3 deficiency impairs honey bee learning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 15761–15766. (10.1073/pnas.1517375112)26644556
81. Muth F, Breslow PR, Masek P, Leonard AS. 2018 A pollen fatty acid enhances learning and survival in bumblebees. Behav. Ecol. 29 , 1371–1379. (10.1093/beheco/ary111)
82. Arien Y, Dag A, Shafir S. 2018 Omega-6:3 ratio more than absolute lipid level in diet affects associative learning in honey bees. Front. Psychol. 9 , 1001. (10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01001)29971031
83. Kishani Farahani H, Moghadassi Y, Pierre JS, Kraus S, Lihoreau M. 2021 Poor adult nutrition impairs learning and memory in a parasitoid wasp. Sci. Rep. 11 , 16220. (10.1038/s41598-021-95664-6)34376777
84. Klaus F, Tscharntke T, Bischoff G, Grass I. 2021 Floral resource diversification promotes solitary bee reproduction and may offset insecticide effects—evidence from a semi-field experiment. Ecol. Lett. 24 , 668–675. (10.1111/ele.13683)33524201
85. Leza M, Watrous KM, Bratu J, Woodard SH. 2018 Effects of neonicotinoid insecticide exposure and monofloral diet on nest-founding bumblebee queens. Proc. R. Soc. B 285 , 20180761. (10.1098/rspb.2018.0761)
86. Ellis C, Park KJ, Whitehorn P, David A, Goulson D. 2017 The neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid impacts upon bumblebee colony development under field conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 1727–1732. (10.1021/acs.est.6b04791)28079366
87. Siviter H, Brown MJF, Leadbeater E. 2018 Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee reproductive success. Nature 561 , 109–112. (10.1038/s41586-018-0430-6)30111837
88. Stuligross C, Melone GG, Wang L, Williams NM. 2023 Sublethal behavioral impacts of resource limitation and insecticide exposure reinforce negative fitness outcomes for a solitary bee. Sci. Total Environ. 867 , 161392. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161392)36621507
89. Siviter H, Folly AJ, Brown MJF, Leadbeater E. 2020 Individual and combined impacts of sulfoxaflor and Nosema bombi on bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) larval growth. Proc. R. Soc. B. 287 , 20200935. (10.1098/rspb.2020.0935)
90. Boff S, Keller A, Raizer J, Lupi D. 2022 Decreased efficiency of pollen collection due to sulfoxaflor exposure leads to a reduction in the size of bumble bee workers in late European summer. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10 , 842563. (10.3389/fevo.2022.842563)
91. Tamburini G et al . 2021 Fungicide and insecticide exposure adversely impacts bumblebees and pollination services under semi-field conditions. Environ. Int. 157 , 106813. (10.1016/j.envint.2021.106813)34455190
92. Tosi S et al . 2021 Long-term field-realistic exposure to a next-generation pesticide, flupyradifurone, impairs honey bee behaviour and survival. Commun. Biol. 4 , 805. (10.1038/s42003-021-02336-2)34183763
93. Sgolastra F, Medrzycki P, Bortolotti L, Maini S, Porrini C, Simon-Delso N, Bosch J. 2020 Bees and pesticide regulation: lessons from the neonicotinoid experience. Biol. Conserv. 241 , 108356. (10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108356)
94. Milner AM, Boyd IL. 2017 Toward pesticidovigilance. Science 357 , 1232–1234. (10.1126/science.aan2683)28935789
95. Fisher A et al . 2023 Breaking the cycle: reforming pesticide regulation to protect pollinators. Bioscience 73 , 808–813. (10.1093/biosci/biad088)38125825
96. OSFHOME. 2023 Data from: A novel insecticide impairs bumblebee memory and sucrose responsiveness across high and low nutrition. OSF. https://osf.io/53kys/
97. Gray L, Hulsey M, Siviter H. 2024 A novel insecticide impairs bumblebee memory and sucrose responsiveness across high and low nutrition. Figshare. (10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7158527)
