==== Front Sci Rep Sci Rep Scientific Reports 2045-2322 Nature Publishing Group UK London 37589 10.1038/s41598-023-37589-w Article A neonicotinoid pesticide alters Drosophila olfactory processing Tatarko Anna R. atatarko@nevada.unr.edu Leonard Anne S. Mathew Dennis grid.266818.3 0000 0004 1936 914X Department of Biology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557 USA 30 6 2023 30 6 2023 2023 13 1060612 1 2023 23 6 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Neonicotinoid pesticides are well-known for their sublethal effects on insect behavior and physiology. Recent work suggests neonicotinoids can impair insect olfactory processing, with potential downstream effects on behavior and possibly survival. However, it is unclear whether impairment occurs during peripheral olfactory detection, during information processing in central brain regions, or in both contexts. We used Drosophila melanogaster to explore the potential for neonicotinoids to disrupt olfaction by conducting electrophysiological analyses of single neurons and whole antennae of flies exposed to varying concentrations of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (IMD) that were shown to cause relative differences in fly survival. Our results demonstrated that IMD exposure significantly reduced the activity of a single focal olfactory neuron and delayed the return to baseline activity of the whole antenna. To determine if IMD also impacts olfactory-guided behavior, we compared flies’ relative preference for odor sources varying in ethanol content. Flies exposed to IMD had a greater relative preference for ethanol-laced pineapple juice than control flies, demonstrating that neuronal shifts induced by IMD that we observed are associated with changes in relative preference. Given the interest in the sensory impacts of agrochemical exposure on wild insect behavior and physiology, we highlight the potential of Drosophila as a tractable model for investigating the effects of pesticides at scales ranging from single-neuron physiology to olfactory-guided behavior. Subject terms Neuroscience Olfactory system Sensory processing Agroecology http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005825 National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2018-67014-27543 issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2023 ==== Body pmcIntroduction Insects are experiencing alarming declines in abundance around the globe1,2. These declines have gained attention for the threat they pose to ecosystem services, including pollination, nutrient cycling, and food web stability1–3. Principal among the factors implicated in these declines are human-induced stressors such as habitat loss, climate change, invasive species, and agricultural intensification4. For example, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides have become ubiquitous in agricultural settings and urban environments (including backyard gardens) and can even be detected in conservation areas in a broad array of plant taxa5–7. Although these chemicals control pests and plant pathogens, non-target insects such as bees and butterflies encounter them while foraging from chemical-laden plants. These chemicals can also have non-consumptive effects, such as creating odor pollution, which makes olfactory-based tasks such as foraging and navigation challenging for insects8,9. However, once consumed, they have detrimental impacts on non-target insect health, which can persist for generations after exposure10–14. Neonicotinoids have quickly grown to become the most widely used insecticide in the world15. This class of pesticide has received considerable attention for its effects on non-target insects such as pollinators16–19. These chemicals are structurally similar to nicotine and have many sublethal effects on insect biology, including but not limited to locomotion, reproduction and growth, behavior and learning, immune function, and nervous system performance20–22. A well-documented effect of neonicotinoids on insect nervous systems relates to their influence on sensory performance, particularly olfactory performance11,23. For example, Muth et al. found that a sublethal dose of a neonicotinoid impaired bumble bees’ (Bombus impatiens) ability to distinguish odors but not colors, indicating that neonicotinoids may have differential effects on sensory systems11. Neonicotinoids act on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), which transmit olfactory information throughout the insect nervous system24 and likely cause disruptions to both peripheral and central olfactory processing. For example, neonicotinoid exposure can affect neurons in the peripheral antennal lobes25,26, while more centrally, neonicotinoid exposure can inhibit Kenyon cell activity in the mushroom bodies27. Neonicotinoids might also affect the activity of olfactory sensory neurons (OSN), impacting the transmission of olfactory information and affecting its quality before more central processing can occur. Although a 2014 study by Rabhi et al.26 did not find changes in OSN response to a pheromone blend in moths exposed to the neonicotinoid Clothianidin, it is unclear if these results generalize across taxa, pesticides, and olfactory contexts. We aimed to identify the peripheral effects of a neonicotinoid pesticide on olfactory processing using Drosophila melanogaster. This model’s well-characterized olfactory physiology allowed us to assess potential impacts scaling from the activity of single neurons, to whole antennal function, to individual fly behavior across three separate experiments. First, we confirmed our protocol of D. melanogaster exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (IMD) by performing a survival assay (Exp. 1). Then, at the single neuron level, we assessed whether IMD alters the sensitivity of a single OSN to a focal odor (Exp. 2). Next, we tested whether IMD alters sensitivity to a focal odor at the whole antenna level (Exp. 3). Finally, we asked if IMD affects performance in an olfactory preference assay (Exp. 4). Drosophila melanogaster is a powerful system to explore the effects of pesticide exposure on sensory processing, as OSN structure and function are well-conserved across insects, including beneficial pollinator taxa such as bees and butterflies, where we have fewer tools to identify the potential mechanisms by which pesticide exposure may affect sensory systems24,28. Results Experiment 1: Drosophila melanogaster survival is affected by IMD exposure To confirm our exposure protocol of IMD for D. melanogaster following29, we transferred newly eclosed adult flies (WT Canton-S) to media (see “Methods”) containing 0, 10, 50, or 100 µM of IMD (N = 50, 53, 58, and 57 respectively) and observed fly survival across 15 days. We performed pairwise comparisons of survival using a Log-Rank test to assess survival across treatments. We found no difference in survival between control flies and flies reared on a 10 µM diet (Fig. 1, log-rank pairwise comparison, P = 0.44). However, 50 and 100 µM diets significantly reduced survival relative to the control (log-rank pairwise comparison, P < 0.001 for each pairwise combination).Figure 1 Percent survival of D. melanogaster over time under each of the four imidacloprid treatments (0, 10, 50, and 100 µM). ***P < 0.0001, n.s. not significant. Gray dashed line at day 3 indicates the age of the flies used in subsequent experiments. Experiment 2: IMD exposure causes concentration-dependent effects on single neuron function To understand the potential impacts of IMD exposure on individual olfactory sensory neuron (OSN) activity, we performed single-unit recordings on flies (N = 14) after 3 days of IMD exposure. Flies were either dosed with either a control (0 µM), a low dose of IMD which Exp. 1 showed caused no difference in fly survival relative to the control (10 µM), or the concentration which caused the most extreme difference in fly survival (100 µM; see Exp 1). We then measured the activity of single neurons (Fig. S1a). We found that IMD treatment significantly affected OSN activity in a concentration-dependent manner (Fig. 2a, X2 = 18.06, P < 0.001). Although there was no difference in OSN activity between control flies and those maintained on a 10 µM IMD diet (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P = 0.44), flies reared on the 100 µM IMD diet had significantly lower OSN activity compared to the 0 and 10 µM IMD treatments (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P = 0.002 and < 0.001, respectively).Figure 2 The olfactory sensory neuron (OSN) response to an odor among flies maintained on three concentrations of imidacloprid. (a) The mean spikes per second by treatment are noted with bolded dots, ± standard error with the raw recording spike frequency in gray circles. Letters denote statistically distinct groups as identified by a Tukey post-hoc comparison. The top left corner of the figure includes a diagram of how electrophysiology responses were recorded from a sensillum, with OSN shown in white. (b) Time of electroantennogram to return to baseline activity after odor stimulation, grouped by treatment. The mean is shown with a bold dot with ± standard error, and each recording’s time to return to baseline is shown in gray circles. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences by treatment (***P < 0.001). The top left corner of the figure includes a diagram of how electroantennogram responses were recorded from the whole antenna, with the sensillum shown in dark gray. Experiment 3: IMD exposure delays return to baseline antennal activity Focusing on the treatment where we observed an effect in Exp. 2, we compared the whole antennal responses (electroantennograms, EAGs) of flies (N = 9) exposed to 0 vs. 100 µM IMD (Fig. S1b). We found no differences between treatments in either the minimum response or the response integral (minimum response: X2 = 0.932, P = 0.334; response integral: X2 = 2.44, P = 0.12). However, the antennae of flies exposed to 100 µM of IMD took longer than control flies to return to baseline activity after odor stimulation (Fig. 2b, X2 = 24.67, P < 0.001). Experiment 4: IMD exposure altered performance in an olfactory test Given the differences in antennal and OSN activity in flies exposed to IMD (Exp. 2, 3), we asked if these changes in neuron activity affected flies’ performance on an olfactory choice test. We used a modified trap assay30 to simultaneously offer two odor traps, one containing pineapple juice (hereafter referred to as “juice”) and one containing pineapple juice adulterated with 10% ethanol by volume (hereafter referred to as “juice + ethanol”). We found significant treatment-level differences in whether flies were found in either of our two odor traps (Fig. 3a, X2 = 17.11, P < 0.001). Only 32% of all flies tested (N = 213) were found in either odor trap at the end of the experiment (N = 33, 32, and 3 for 0, 10, and 100 µM treatment groups, respectively). Flies treated with 0 and 10 µM were equally likely to become trapped (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P = 0.21). In contrast, flies treated with 100 µM were significantly less likely to become trapped compared to 0 and 10 µM flies (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Of these trapped flies, 66.7% of the 0 µM flies had a relative preference for juice and 33.3% for juice + ethanol, but this pattern was reversed with exposure to IMD (Fig. 3b). Flies exposed to 10 µM had a significantly higher relative preference for juice + ethanol (59.4% juice + ethanol vs. 40.6% juice) compared to control flies, but this was not true for 100 µM flies (10 µM: Z-stat = 2.080, P = 0.038, 100 µM: Z-stat = 0.012, P = 0.990). Of the 3 flies in the 100 µM treatment that were trapped, they were exclusively found in the juice + ethanol trap (0.0% to juice vs. 100% to juice + ethanol).Figure 3 (a) The proportion of flies (out of all tested) found in either trap by treatment. The mean is plotted in color as a bold dot with ± standard error. Letters denote statistically distinct groups as identified by a Tukey post-hoc comparison. (b) The proportion of flies (out of all “trapped” flies) in either of the two traps by treatment. Flies either chose the trap containing pineapple juice adulterated with 10% ethanol (Ethanol + Juice) or pure pineapple juice (Juice). Asterisks denote statistically significant differences by treatment (*P < 0.05). Discussion Using D. melanogaster as a model, we examined whether a common neonicotinoid pesticide, imidacloprid (IMD), caused changes in the activity of a single olfactory neuron, whole antenna function, and performance on an olfactory choice test. We found that following exposure to concentrations of IMD that are relevant for fly survival, flies showed a reduction in neuron activity and a delay in return to baseline antennal response. In addition, these effects may scale up to alter olfactory-mediated behavior: flies exposed to IMD had a higher relative preference for pineapple juice containing ethanol than our control group. However, this pattern did not hold for our highest IMD exposure level, as only three flies from this group were found in an odor trap. Past work has shown that neonicotinoids can disrupt insect sensory systems, including vision and olfaction. In D. melanogaster, IMD exposure can damage glial cells and impair vision31. In other systems, such as Locusta migratoria, IMD exposure has been found to reduce both the peak firing rate of a crucial motion-sensitive neuron and flight avoidance behavior in response to motion-based stimuli32,33. In the hoverfly (Eristalis tenax), IMD exposure can also reduce stimuli-induced activity in lobula plate tangential cells, which are involved in motion detection in the fly brain34. There is also strong evidence to suggest that neonicotinoids affect insect chemoreception, including gustation and olfaction, at least in bees23,35–37. Neonicotinoids have been shown to impact specific olfactory regions such as the mushroom bodies and antennal lobes25–27, and behaviors such as odor-based learning and navigation11,22,38, where their impact may be stronger on olfactory- than visually-guided behavior11. For example, a study by Muth et al. demonstrated that bumble bees trained to a specific color-scent discrimination task were more likely to make errors relating to scent identity than color11. It is also worth noting that the magnitude of olfactory disruption may vary with taxa and sensory context; studies analogous to ours in moths have shown inconsistent effects (if any) on olfactory neurons involved in pheromone detection26,38. In contrast, our results demonstrate that this neonicotinoid pesticide may impair D. melanogaster olfactory neurons and olfactory-based behavior. Olfactory neuron and antennal activity Neonicotinoids primarily act as antagonists of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), which are found throughout the insect central nervous system, and are abundant in the olfactory system, including OSNs39,40. Specifically, these pesticides (and IMD, in particular) have been found to target nAChRs subunits Dα1/Dα2/Dβ1/Dβ241,42. In our study, we recorded the activity of an OSN, which expresses the odor receptor Or22a43. This neuron expresses the nAChRs subunits Dβ1 and Dβ2 in D. melanogaster, although it is probable that one or more alpha subunit is also expressed, but has yet to be identified (Table S1)44. When a neonicotinoid binds to these receptors, it initially causes hyperexcitation45; however, prolonged exposure to neonicotinoids such as IMD leads to neuron inactivation40,46. Our results suggest that prolonged exposure of 100 µM may have induced the inactivation of OSNs, leading to a significantly smaller response to the odor. A recent study by Rabhi et al. found exposure to the neonicotinoid Clothianidin did not alter OSN activity in the black cutworm moth Agrotis ipsilon26. However, these authors fed moths an acute dose of the pesticide, whereas we sustained exposure over 3 days (and focused on a different neonicotinoid). Our approach to pesticide exposure manipulated the concentration of IMD in fly food media. We did not otherwise control the timing of exposure. However, we did confirm that these concentrations of IMD resulted in survival differences (Fig. 1). Both acute and chronic exposure are likely relevant for wild insects, and the differences in the results of these studies may reflect the variation in timing, concentration, or accumulation of exposure. There may also be system-specific differences in how these chemicals act. Regarding whole antenna response, studies of a one-time topical application of the neonicotinoids Thiacloprid and Clothianidin found that these chemicals can reduce EAG response in one moth species and two bee species (Lobesia botrana, Osmia bicornis, and Bombus terrestris)38,47. In contrast, we found D. melanogaster showed no difference in the strength of the EAG response with IMD exposure but did show differences in EAG latency to return to baseline response. Although we know neonicotinoids like IMD target nAChRs, it is possible that neonicotinoids also alter neuron function through other mechanisms. For example, these chemicals might change the electrophysiological environment surrounding these neurons or alter neuron function like other neurotoxins shifting the voltage dependence of activation, inhibiting inactivation, or inhibiting ion transport48. More studies would be needed to dissect the precise mechanism(s) by which IMD affects EAG response latency. Performance on an olfactory choice test We found that even 10 µM, our lowest exposure of IMD (at which fly survival did not differ significantly from the control, Exp. 1), can change D. melanogaster’s relative preference for the presence of ethanol in an odor source. Drosophila melanogaster lay their eggs in fermenting fruit and show a preference for alcohol fermentation products such as ethanol49. These flies have evolved a tolerance of alcohol and even seek out ethanol when infected by parasites which in turn causes parasite mortality50. Whether the relative preference for ethanol in neonicotinoid-stressed flies in our study was driven by self-medication or some other physiological changes remains to be tested. Neonicotinoids also decrease mobility, foraging motivation, and consumption in bees and D. melanogaster21,47,51–54, which might explain why flies in the 100 µM treatment group had the lowest participation in the test. While our results demonstrate neonicotinoids may alter peripheral odor processing, previous work on antennal lobe and Kenyon cell activity indicate that neonicotinoids may affect olfactory behaviors at multiple levels of information processing25–27. Conclusion Neonicotinoid-induced olfactory impairment could affect a diverse assortment of insects, especially pollinators and other insects that depend on olfaction-based navigation and memory much more strongly than sedentary insects like aphids28,55. Utilizing the extensively annotated olfactory system of D. melanogaster (which is well-conserved among insects) allows us to understand the neurological basis of neonicotinoids’ behavioral effects at a higher degree of resolution than is possible in other insect systems. Such studies might unmask the mechanism by which these compounds alter neuron function, which in turn affects important behaviors such as foraging or mating that might be missed by traditional assays. By evaluating the subtle effects of such pesticides in model systems like D. melanogaster, we can continue to understand the scope of their impact and role in the decline of beneficial insect populations such as pollinators. Methods We maintained Canton-S WT of Drosophila melanogaster on standard cornmeal-dextrose agar (prepared according to manufacturer’s protocol: Genesee Scientific, San Diego, California) on a 12-h light cycle at 25 °C and 60% relative humidity, unless otherwise specified. Upon eclosure, we transferred adult flies to experimental media (see below). Chemical reagents To create a 1:1 stock solution, we dissolved IMD (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which was then pipetted into the food during preparation at concentrations ranging from 0, 10, 50, and 100 µM. We supplemented food media with indigo-carmine dye (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) to visually confirm food consumption. Experiment 1: Fly survival To confirm our IMD exposure protocol, we performed a separate survival assay to confirm the exposure protocol (Fig. 1). Following the protocol established by Daisley et al.29, we transferred newly eclosed adult flies to media (prepared as above) containing 0, 10, 50, and 100 µM of IMD. Fly survival was monitored daily for 15 days. Experiment 2: Single neuron function We performed single-unit olfactory sensory neuron (OSN) recordings on flies (N = 14) following56. Newly eclosed flies were exposed to diets prepared as described above to contain 0, 10, and 100 µM of IMD for three days. All recordings were conducted as previously described43,57. Briefly, we recorded neuron activity from the AB3 sensilla immediately following stimulation with methyl hexanoate (Fig. S1). Methyl hexanoate is a compound found in ripe fruit (such as pineapples, passion fruit, and strawberries). It is known to elicit a strong response in OSNs58. We presented odor stimuli using a Pasteur pipette containing 50 µL of methyl hexanoate diluted in paraffin oil (10−4 dilution) placed on a Whatman 13-mm filter paper disk (Millipore). We prepared these odor cartridges shortly before odor presentation, and each cartridge was never used more than three times. Three recordings were taken from three separate AB3 sensilla for each individual where possible (N = 20, 30, and 22 recordings per treatment, respectively). Then, we assessed the spike frequency of the AB3a neuron in the first 500 ms post-stimulus. The AB3a neuron expresses the odor receptor Or22a, which is sensitive to methyl hexanoate43. The mean response frequency to DMSO alone (which includes spontaneous response) was subtracted from each odor response frequency for each recording. Experiment 3: Antennal response We performed whole antenna electroantennograms (EAG) following59,60 on newly eclosed flies which had been exposed to diets containing either 0 or 100 µM of IMD (N = 5 and 4 individuals, respectively) for three days. We placed the recording electrode in the antennal region rich in AB3 sensilla and conducted three recordings per individual (N = 14 and 10 recordings, respectively) immediately following stimulation with methyl hexanoate diluted in paraffin oil (10−4 dilution, preparing odor cartridges as above). We quantified antennal response as the minimum, the integral of the response curve, and the time to return to baseline (0 mV) for each recording. Experiment 4: Performance on an olfactory choice test To assess the potential impacts of IMD on olfactory-guided behavior, we used a modified trap assay30 where flies were simultaneously offered two odorants representing ripe vs. unripe fruit. Assays took place inside experimental chambers (dimensions 24.75 × 14.5 × 11.5 cm) housed in an incubator on a 24-h dark cycle to reduce the influence of visual stimuli. Odor traps were constructed from clear plastic 12-dram vials. Each odor trap was fitted with the cut end of a 1000 µL pipette tip, allowing flies to enter the trap, but not exit. One odor trap contained 1000 µL unadulterated canned liquid pineapple juice (Dole Food Company and Total Produce, USA, which was kept frozen until use). The other contained pineapple juice adulterated with 10% ethanol by volume. Ethanol, a byproduct of the fermentation process, should be attractive to mated female fruit flies, which lay eggs in fermenting fruit49. In addition, ethanol has been shown to elicit a strong EAG response in D. melanogaster, and when used in a blend with other compounds commonly found in fermenting fruit, the blend lured and trapped more flies than compounds in isolation61. Flies were exposed to IMD as in experiments 2 and 3, but in this experiment, 10 female and 10 male flies were placed in each vial to allow mating. After 3 days of exposure, adult females were transferred to an empty vial where they were starved (given no food or water) to increase participation in the assay. After 24 h, flies were then transferred to an experimental chamber. Within a chamber, all flies were assigned to the same treatment (0, 10, or 100 µM). After 48 h, we counted flies in each odor trap and the number of untrapped flies remaining in the experimental chamber. Analyses All statistical analyses were carried out in R version 4.0.262. To identify differences in fly survival by treatment, we performed pairwise comparisons of survival by treatment using a Log-Rank test from the survival package63. To compare OSN response by treatment, we used a linear mixed-model approach treating individual as a random effect using the lme4 package64 and type II ANOVA using the ANOVA function from the car package65 and Tukey comparison was performed using the glht function from the multcomp package66. Electroantennogram response analysis again used a linear mixed-model approach treating individual as a random effect, but here we used three separate models for each of our three response variables: minimum, integral, and return to baseline for each treatment. To assess performance on an olfactory test, here we used a binomial linear regression to compare the total number of flies in either odor trap (“trapped flies”) to flies in the larger experimental chamber (“untrapped flies”) for each treatment using the stats package67 and type II ANOVA using the ANOVA function from the car package65 and Tukey comparison was performed using the glht function from the multcomp package66 as before. This allowed us to estimate the effects of the insecticide on fly movement and/or feeding motivation, two aspects of behavior for which IMD has well-documented effects18. Finally, to assess if IMD also alters odor discrimination, we used a separate binomial regression to compare the number of flies in the unadulterated juice odor trap and the adulterated (juice + 10% ethanol) juice odor trap. Supplementary Information Supplementary Information. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-023-37589-w. Acknowledgements This work is supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Pollinator Health program (NIFA 2018-67014-27543 to A.S.L. and D.M.) from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Author contributions A.S.L., A.T., and D.M. conceived and designed the research. A.T. collected the data, performed statistical analyses, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript. Data availability The datasets and R scripts for statistical analysis generated by this study are available on request to the corresponding author. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ==== Refs References 1. Goulson D The insect apocalypse, and why it matters Curr. Biol. 2019 29 R967 R971 10.1016/j.cub.2019.06.069 31593678 2. Wagner DL Insect declines in the anthropocene Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020 65 457 480 10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151 31610138 3. Vanbergen AJ Initiative P Threats to an ecosystem service: Pressures on pollinators Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013 11 251 259 10.1890/120126 4. Forister ML Pelton EM Black SH Declines in insect abundance and diversity: We know enough to act now Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2019 1 1 8 5. Halsch CA Pesticide contamination of milkweeds across the agricultural, urban, and open spaces of low-elevation northern California Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020 8 1 11 10.3389/fevo.2020.00162 6. Zioga E Kelly R White B Stout JC Plant protection product residues in plant pollen and nectar: A review of current knowledge Environ. Res. 2020 189 109873 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109873 32795671 7. Meftaul I Venkateswarlu K Dharmarajan R Annamalai P Pesticides in the urban environment: A potential threat that knocks at the door Science of the Total Environment 2020 711 134612 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134612 31810707 8. David NF Henry TJ Sprayberry JDH Odor-pollution from fungicides disrupts learning and recognition of a common floral scent in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022 10 0 14 10.3389/fevo.2022.765388 9. Sprayberry JDH Ritter KA Riffell JA The effect of olfactory exposure to non-insecticidal agrochemicals on bumblebee foraging behavior PLoS One 2013 8 1 9 10. Johnson RM Ellis MD Mullin CA Frazier M Pesticides and honey bee toxicity—USA Apidologie 2010 41 312 331 10.1051/apido/2010018 11. Muth F Francis JS Leonard AS Modality-specific impairment of learning by a neonicotinoid pesticide Biol. Lett. 2019 15 1 5 10.1098/rsbl.2019.0359 12. Cullen MG Thompson LJ Carolan JC Stout JC Stanley DA Fungicides, herbicides and bees: A systematic review of existing research and methods PLoS One 2019 14 1 17 13. Stuligross C Williams NM Past insecticide exposure reduces bee reproduction and population growth rate Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2021 118 1 6 10.1073/pnas.2109909118 14. Botías C David A Hill EM Goulson D Contamination of wild plants near neonicotinoid seed-treated crops, and implications for non-target insects Sci. Total Environ. 2016 566–567 269 278 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.065 27220104 15. Nauen R Jeschke P Copping L In Focus: Neonicotinoid insecticides Pest Manag. Sci. 2008 64 1081 10.1002/ps.1659 18798170 16. Yang EC Chuang YC Chen YL Chang LH Abnormal foraging behavior induced by sublethal dosage of imidacloprid in the honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) J. Econ. Entomol. 2008 101 1743 1748 10.1603/0022-0493-101.6.1743 19133451 17. Medrzycki P Effects of imidacloprid administered in sub-lethal doses on honey bee behaviour. Laboratory tests Bull. Insectol. 2003 56 59 62 18. Muth F Leonard AS A neonicotinoid pesticide impairs foraging, but not learning, in free-flying bumblebees Sci. Rep. 2019 9 1 13 10.1038/s41598-019-39701-5 30626917 19. Sandrock C Sublethal neonicotinoid insecticide exposure reduces solitary bee reproductive success Agric. For. Entomol. 2014 16 119 128 10.1111/afe.12041 20. Singla A Barmota H Kumar Sahoo S Kaur Kang B Influence of neonicotinoids on pollinators: A review J. Apic. Res. 2021 60 19 32 10.1080/00218839.2020.1825044 21. Pisa LW Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014 22 68 102 10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x 22. Mustard JA Gott A Scott J Chavarria NL Wright GA Honeybees fail to discriminate floral scents in a complex learning task after consuming a neonicotinoid pesticide J. Exp. Biol. 2020 223 jeb217174 10.1242/jeb.217174 32029463 23. Tan K A neonicotinoid impairs olfactory learning in Asian honey bees (Apis cerana) exposed as larvae or as adults Sci. Rep. 2015 5 1 8 24. Dupuis J Louis T Gauthier M Raymond V Insights from honeybee (Apis mellifera) and fly (Drosophila melanogaster) nicotinic acetylcholine receptors: From genes to behavioral functions Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012 36 1553 1564 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.04.003 22525891 25. Andrione M Vallortigara G Antolini R Haase A Neonicotinoid-induced impairment of odour coding in the honeybee Sci. Rep. 2016 6 1 9 10.1038/srep38110 28442746 26. Rabhi KK Low doses of a neonicotinoid insecticide modify pheromone response thresholds of central but not peripheral olfactory neurons in a pest insect Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016 283 20152987 10.1098/rspb.2015.2987 27. Palmer MJ Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees Nat. Commun. 2013 4 1634 10.1038/ncomms2648 23535655 28. Tasman K Rands SA Hodge JJL The power of drosophila melanogaster for modeling neonicotinoid effects on pollinators and identifying novel mechanisms Front. Physiol. 2021 12 1 21 10.3389/fphys.2021.659440 29. Daisley BA Neonicotinoid-induced pathogen susceptibility is mitigated by Lactobacillus plantarum immune stimulation in a Drosophila melanogaster model Sci. Rep. 2017 7 1 13 10.1038/s41598-017-02806-w 28127051 30. Larsson MC Or83b encodes a broadly expressed odorant receptor essential for Drosophila olfaction Neuron 2004 43 703 714 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.019 15339651 31. Martelli F Low doses of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid induce ROS triggering neurological and metabolic impairments in Drosophila Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2020 117 25840 25850 10.1073/pnas.2011828117 32989137 32. Parkinson RH Gray JR Neural conduction, visual motion detection, and insect flight behaviour are disrupted by low doses of imidacloprid and its metabolites Neurotoxicology 2019 72 107 113 10.1016/j.neuro.2019.02.012 30790592 33. Parkinson RH Little JM Gray JR A sublethal dose of a neonicotinoid insecticide disrupts visual processing and collision avoidance behaviour in Locusta migratoria Sci. Rep. 2017 7 1 13 10.1038/s41598-017-01039-1 28127051 34. Rigosi E O’Carroll DC The cholinergic pesticide imidacloprid impairs contrast and direction sensitivity in motion detecting neurons of an insect pollinator Front. Physiol. 2018 12 682489 10.3389/fphys.2021.682489 35. Richman SK Muth F Leonard AS Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: A comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure Oecologia 2021 196 963 976 10.1007/s00442-021-04979-8 34250559 36. Alkassab AT Kirchner WH Sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids and related side effects on insect pollinators: Honeybees, bumblebees, and solitary bees J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2017 124 1 30 10.1007/s41348-016-0041-0 37. Blacquière T Smagghe G Van Gestel CAM Mommaerts V Neonicotinoids in bees: A review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment Ecotoxicology 2012 21 973 992 10.1007/s10646-012-0863-x 22350105 38. Navarro-Roldán MA Amat C Bau J Gemeno C Extremely low neonicotinoid doses alter navigation of pest insects along pheromone plumes Sci. Rep. 2019 9 1 9 10.1038/s41598-019-44581-w 30626917 39. Breer H Sattelle DB Molecular properties and functions of insect acetylcholine receptors J. Insect Physiol. 1987 33 771 790 10.1016/0022-1910(87)90025-4 40. Salgado VL Saar R Desensitizing and non-desensitizing subtypes of alpha-bungarotoxin-sensitive nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in cockroach neurons J. Insect Physiol. 2004 50 867 879 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2004.07.007 15518655 41. Ihara M Cofactor-enabled functional expression of fruit fly, honeybee, and bumblebee nicotinic receptors reveals picomolar neonicotinoid actions Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2020 117 16283 16291 10.1073/pnas.2003667117 32611810 42. Perry T Role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits in the mode of action of neonicotinoid, sulfoximine and spinosyn insecticides in Drosophila melanogaster Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2021 131 103547 10.1016/j.ibmb.2021.103547 33548485 43. Dobritsa AA Van Der Goes Van Naters W Warr CG Steinbrecht RA Carlson JR Integrating the molecular and cellular basis of odor coding in the Drosophila antenna Neuron 2003 37 827 841 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00094-1 12628173 44. Li H Fly Cell Atlas: A single-nucleus transcriptomic atlas of the adult fruit fly Science 2022 375 eabk2432 10.1126/science.abk2432 35239393 45. Tackenberg MC Neonicotinoids disrupt circadian rhythms and sleep in honey bees Sci. Rep. 2020 10 1 10 10.1038/s41598-020-72041-3 31913322 46. Tan J Galligan JJ Hollingworth RM Agonist actions of neonicotinoids on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors expressed by cockroach neurons Neurotoxicology 2007 28 829 842 10.1016/j.neuro.2007.04.002 17561262 47. Straub F Orih IJ Kimmich J Ayasse M Negative effects of the neonicotinoid clothianidin on foraging behavior and antennal sensitivity in two common pollinator species, Osmia bicornis and Bombus terrestris Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021 9 1 10 10.3389/fevo.2021.697355 48. Zlotkin E Fishman Y Elazar M AaIT: From neurotoxin to insecticide Biochimie 2000 82 869 881 10.1016/S0300-9084(00)01177-9 11086217 49. David JR Van Herrewege J Adaptation to alcoholic fermentation in Drosophila species: Relationship between alcohol tolerance and larval habitat Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Physiol. 1983 74 283 288 10.1016/0300-9629(83)90601-1 50. Milan NF Kacsoh BZ Schlenke TA Alcohol consumption as self-medication against blood-borne parasites in the fruit fly Curr. Biol. 2012 22 488 493 10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.045 22342747 51. Lämsä J Kuusela E Tuomi J Juntunen S Watts PC Low dose of neonicotinoid insecticide reduces foraging motivation of bumblebees Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018 285 20180506 10.1098/rspb.2018.0506 52. Cresswell JE Robert FXL Florance H Smirnoff N Clearance of ingested neonicotinoid pesticide (imidacloprid) in honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) Pest Manag. Sci. 2014 70 332 337 10.1002/ps.3569 23633150 53. Tasman K Hidalgo S Zhu B Rands SA Hodge JJL Neonicotinoids disrupt memory, circadian behaviour and sleep Sci. Rep. 2021 11 1 13 10.1038/s41598-021-81548-2 33414495 54. Young HK Denecke SM Robin C Fournier-Level A Sublethal larval exposure to imidacloprid impacts adult behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster J. Evol. Biol. 2020 33 151 164 10.1111/jeb.13555 31637792 55. Sprayberry JDH The prevalence of olfactory- versus visual-signal encounter by searching bumblebees Sci. Rep. 2018 8 1 10 10.1038/s41598-018-32897-y 29311619 56. Mathew D Functional diversity among sensory receptors in a Drosophila olfactory circuit Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013 110 E2134 E2143 10.1073/pnas.1306976110 23690583 57. Hallem EA Ho MG Carlson JR The molecular basis of odor coding in the Drosophila antenna Cell 2004 117 965 979 10.1016/j.cell.2004.05.012 15210116 58. Pelz D Roeske T Syed Z De Bruyne M Galizia CG The molecular receptive range of an olfactory receptor in vivo (Drosophila melanogaster Or22a) J. Neurobiol. 2006 66 1544 1563 10.1002/neu.20333 17103386 59. Park KC Ochieng SA Zhu J Baker TC Odor discrimination using insect electroantennogram responses from an insect antennal array Chem. Senses 2002 27 343 352 10.1093/chemse/27.4.343 12006374 60. Olsson SB Hansson BS Electroantennogram and single sensillum recording in insect antennae Methods Mol. Biol. 2013 1068 157 177 10.1007/978-1-62703-619-1_11 24014360 61. Zhu J Park KC Baker TC Identification of odors from overripe mango that attract vinegar flies, Drosophila melanogaster J. Chem. Ecol. 2003 29 899 909 10.1023/A:1022931816351 12775150 62. Team, Rs. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R (2022). 63. Therneau TM Grambsch PM Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model 2000 Springer 64. Bates D Mächler M Bolker B Walker S Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4 J. Stat. Softw. 2014 67 1 48 65. Fox J Weisberg S An R Companion to Applied Regression 2011 Sage 66. Hothorn T Bretz F Westfall P Simultaneous inference in general parametric models Biom. J. 2008 50 346 363 10.1002/bimj.200810425 18481363 67. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (2020).