-
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Larval exposure to thiamethoxam and American foulbrood: effects
on mortality andcognition in the honey bee Apis mellifera
Anna Papacha,b, Dominique Fortinib, Stephane Grateaub, Pierrick
Aupinelb and Freddie-Jeanne Richarda*
aLaboratoire Ecologie Evolution Symbiose, UMR CNRS 7267 – EBI
team Écologie, Évolution, Symbiose, Université de Poitiers,
Poitiers Cedex 9,France; bINRA Magneraud, UE Entomologie,
Surgères, France
(Received 3 February 2017; accepted 12 May 2017)
Here, we examined the in vitro effects of co-exposure to a
pathogen and a common neonicotinoid on honey bee larvaesurvival and
on adult learning behavior following a standard olfactory
conditioning procedure based on the proboscisextension response
paradigm. We exposed or co-exposed honey bee larvae to American
foulbrood and to sub-lethaldoses of thiamethoxam (chronic
exposure). Our results revealed no additive effects between the two
stressors on lar-val mortality. However, the present work provides
the first evidence of impaired learning and memory in adult
beesthat were fed thiamethoxam (0.6 ng/bee) during the larval
stage. We also show no alterations in learning and memoryin bees
after infection with American foulbrood at the larval stage. The
present study contributes to our knowledge ofthe sub-lethal effects
of neonicotinoids on honey bee larvae and adults.
Exposición larvaria a thiamethoxam y loque americana: efectos
sobre la mortalidad y la cognición en laabeja de miel Apis
mellifera
En este estudio se examinaron los efectos in vitro de la
co-exposición a un patógeno y un neonicotinoide común en
lasupervivencia de las larvas de abejas melı́feras y sobre el
comportamiento de aprendizaje de adultos siguiendo un
pro-cedimiento de acondicionamiento olfativo estándar basado en el
paradigma de la respuesta de extensión de la probós-cide (PER por
sus siglas en inglés). Expusimos o co-expusimos las larvas de
abejas melı́feras a la loque americana y adosis sub-letales de
thiamethoxam (exposición crónica). Nuestros resultados no
revelaron efectos aditivos entre losdos estresores sobre la
mortalidad larvaria. Sin embargo, el presente trabajo proporciona
la primera evidencia de dete-rioro del aprendizaje y la memoria en
abejas adultas que fueron alimentadas con thiamethoxam (0,6 38 ng /
abeja) dur-ante la fase larvaria. También mostramos que no hay
alteraciones en el aprendizaje y la memoria en las abejas
despuésde la infección con loque americana en la fase larvaria.
El presente estudio contribuye a nuestro conocimiento de losefectos
sub-letales de los neonicotinoides en larvas de abejas y en
adultos.
Keywords: Apis mellifera; environmental interactions; olfactory
learning; neonicotinoid; pathogen; sub-lethal effect
Introduction
Health of the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) is of
high importance due to their key role in pollinating crops
and wild plant communities (Aebi et al., 2012). In recent
years losses of managed honey bee colonies were
observed in Northern hemisphere and many factors
were identified to negatively affect honey bee health and
lead to colony failure (vanEnglesdorp & Meixner, 2010).
Among them are land-use intensification, which includes
habitat fragmentation and the heavy usage of pesticides;
climate change and spread of alien species and diseases
(Potts et al., 2010; Vanbergen & The Insect Pollinators
Initiative, 2013). These factors can interact in many dif-
ferent ways and have various effects, many of which are
unknown. Several studies have been done under labora-
tory conditions and show that pesticides can act syner-
gistically with pathogens on honey bee health and cause
higher mortality (Alaux et al., 2010; Aufauvre et al., 2012;
Di Prisco et al., 2013; Doublet, Labarussias, Miranda,
Moritz, & Paxton,2015; Pettis, vanEnglesdorp, Johnson,
&
Dively, 2012; Retschnig, Neumann, & Williams, 2014;
Vidau et al., 2011). For example honey bees that are
exposed to the pesticide clothianidin have reduced
immune defenses and are more susceptible to viruses
(Di Prisco et al., 2013), and exposure to sub-lethal con-
centrations of imidacloprid during the larval stage makes
workers more sensitive to the gut parasite Nosema cer-
anae (Pettis et al., 2012; vanEnglesdorp et al., 2009).
Overall, the studies on co-exposure mentioned above
aimed to detect the effects of co-exposure on worker
mortality and immune defenses. None of them focused
on sub-lethal effects co-exposure might have. It has been
noted that in addition to tests aiming to detect bee mor-
tality, we are in need of tests that can determine possible
sub-lethal effects (Schneider, Tautz, Grünewald, &
Fuchs,
2012). One of these methods that can be performed
under laboratory conditions is the olfactory conditioning
of the proboscis extension response (PER). It results in
olfactory learning and yields robust olfactory memory.
Considering sub-lethal effects, in the present work in
*Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected]
© 2017 International Bee Research Association
Journal of Apicultural Research, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2017.1332541
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2796-1181http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2796-1181http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2796-1181mailto:[email protected]://www.tandfonline.comhttp://www.tandfonline.comhttp://www.tandfonline.comhttps://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2017.1332541http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog?doi=10.1080/00218839.2017.1332541&domain=pdf
-
addition to mortality, we aimed to study the effects of
co-exposure on honey bee olfactory learning perfor-
mance. Olfactory learning is one of the key components
of successful foraging. Honey bees learn to associate the
floral odor with a nectar reward and then share this
information with newly recruited foragers (Frisch, 1967).
Learned odors can be still remembered several days and
weeks after they are initially encountered (Menzel,
1999). Evidently, olfactory associative behavior is vital
for
colony success and survival. Moreover, we decided to
examine the impact of co-exposure on hypopharyngeal
gland (HPG) development. These glands produce the
royal jelly that is required for feeding larvae (Crailsheim
et al., 1992). They are well developed in young bees that
perform nursing duties in the hive, and they degenerate
with age (Deseyn & Billen, 2005).
As a pathogen we chose American foulbrood as it is
considered to be the most detrimental disease for honey
bee larvae (Genersch, 2010). American foulbrood has
been known for more than a century and is a cosmopoli-
tan disease, occurring all around the world wherever
there are the colonies of A. mellifera (Genersch, 2010).
This disease is highly contagious, and the spores are
highly resistant in the environment and can remain dor-
mant for as long as 50 years (Genersch, 2010). The cau-
sative agent is the gram-positive spore-forming bacterium
Paenibacillus larvae, which can only infect honey bee larvae
within 53 h after hatching, while adult bees are safe from
infection (Genersch, Ashiralieva, & Fries, 2005).
The choice of pesticide for our experiment had fallen
on thiamethoxam. This pesticide is used for crop protec-
tion and belongs to the group of neonicotinoids, which
are currently most well-known and widely used group of
pesticides. It is an active ingredient in the pesticides
Helix
XTra and Cruiser. In the environment, bees can be
exposed to thiamethoxam while foraging. Thiamethoxam
use is widespread: it is one of the most abundant neoni-
cotinoids and was found to be present in 65% of nectar
samples and 37% of pollen samples examined (Pohorecka
et al., 2012). In treated crops, the amount of thi-
amethoxam in pollen can reach 2–7 ppb (Pilling, Camp-
bell, Coulson, Ruddle, & Tornier, 2013), while in nectar
this number varies between 3.2 and 12.9 ppb (Pohorecka
et al., 2012), and thiamethoxam has also been detected in
wax inside the hives, where it can reach 53.3 ppb (Mullin
et al., 2010). This contaminated pollen and nectar are
brought back to the hives and are used and processed by
nurse bees to feed larvae.
There is a gap our knowledge gained from co-expo-
sure studies on the interaction between pesticides and
pathogens. Moreover, nearly all of the studies con-
ducted on the impact of pesticides on honey bees have
been performed on workers and only a few have looked
at the impact that it might have after the early exposure
of honey bee larvae (Tan et al., 2015; Tavares, Roat,
Carvalho, Silva-Zacarin, & Malaspina, 2015; Yang, Chang,
Wu, & Chen, 2012). Consequently, in our study, we
decided to investigate the effects on honey bee larvae
of exposure to a pesticide and pathogen (both sepa-
rately and when co-exposed). We exposed honey bee
larvae to sub-lethal doses of a pesticide (thiamethoxam)
and a pathogen (P. larvae) and measured their effects on
honey bee larvae survival and emergence, as well as on
olfactory learning and memory abilities and HPG devel-
opment in adults. We also tested whether co-exposure
to this pesticide and pathogen had an additive effect.
Materials and methods
All the experiments were conducted in the entomologi-
cal experimental unit of INRA, le Magneraud, France
between March and August, 2015. In this study, we
recorded larval and pupal mortality and adult emergence
rates. We also measured effects on learning and mem-
ory, as well as total head protein concentrations, in
honey bee workers in the different treatment groups.
We compared all variables between the untreated larvae
used as the control group (control) and the treated
larvae. Treatments were as follows: exposure to 800 P.
larvae spores (Am F) or 0.6 ng thiamethoxam (TMX), in
cases of single exposure, or exposure to 800 P. larvae
spores and 0.6 ng thiamethoxam (Am F × TMX high) orto 400 P.
larvae spores and 0.3 ng thiamethoxam (Am
F × TMX low), in cases of co-exposure. All groupstested
including the control ones were raised in vitro.
Larval rearing and exposure
One-day-old larvae were collected from 3 different
healthy colonies of A. mellifera ligustica and reared in
vitro
until reaching the adult stage. For artificial larval
rearing,
we followed the method adapted by Aupinel et al.
(2005). To obtain a comb with first instar larvae, the
queen was confined to an empty comb using an exclu-
der cage and left there for 24 h. After the queen was
removed from the cage, a comb with eggs was left in
the hive for two more days to obtain first instar larvae
for grafting. All grafts were performed in the laboratory
at room temperature. Larvae were transferred from the
comb to artificial cells previously filled with royal jelly
and an aqueous solution of D-glucose, D-fructose and
yeast extract. Plates with day-old larvae were trans-
ferred into an incubator at 34.5 ± 0.5 ˚C and 95 ± 5%
relative humidity (RH) (Figure 1). Two sets of grafts
were performed per each colony. A total of 96 larvae
per treatment were obtained during each graft.
On the 8th day, all larvae were transferred into a
desiccator with a lower humidity (80 ± 5%) and kept in
an incubator at 34.5 ± 0.5 ˚C (Figure 1). At the end of
the pupation stage on day 15, plates with pupae were
transferred into alimentary crystal polypropylene boxes
with aerated lids. The boxes were kept in an incubator
at 34.5 ± 0.5 ˚C and approximately 50% RH. After
emergence, honey bee workers were fed with pollen
powder and a solution of 50% sucrose ad libitum and
were exposed to Bee Boost (Phero Tech Inc) and pieces
2 A. Papach et al.
-
of wax that were added to each box. Pollen was chan-
ged every two days. Mortality was recorded every day
before feeding time from day 3 to day 5 during the lar-
val stage, on day 8 and day 15 during the pupal stage
and from day 18 to day 22 after adult emergence.
Adults were kept in these conditions for 13–14 days
after emergence until the olfactory learning tests.
American foulbrood exposure
American foulbrood is a disease affecting honey bee lar-
vae that is caused by sporulating P. larvae. Spores repre-
sent the infective form of the disease (Genersch, 2010),
and they germinate in the larval midgut of the host, giv-
ing rise to the vegetative forms that causes bacteremia
and death. The P. larvae strain used here was collected
and isolated from an infected colony at the Magneraud
beekeeping research station in 2010. It was purified and
stored in water at 5 ˚C. The genotype of P.larvae that
was used in the present experiment is ERIC I. Honey
bee larvae were exposed to P. larvae spores on day 1
after grafting. Honey bee larvae were exposed to either
400 or 800 spores in their diet according to the
experimental treatment (single or co-exposure).
Thiamethoxam exposure
Thiamethoxam (99% purity) was obtained from the Clu-
zeau Info Labo. Stock solutions of this pesticide were
prepared in water. Thiamethoxam was added to the lar-
val diet. In total, each larva received 0.6 ng or 0.3 ng of
thiamethoxam according to the experimental treatment
(single or co-exposure), which corresponded to 4 and
2 ppb of thiamethoxam in the diet, respectively. Chronic
exposure of larvae to thiamethoxam was achieved by
treating them during 4 days, starting from day 3 and
ending on day 6.
The sub-lethal concentration of thiamethoxam was
determined based on preliminary experiments. For rear-
ing and maintaining honey bee larvae we used the same
method as described above. During the experiments we
exposed 384 larvae per treatment which included the
following: control (no treatment applied), 0.3 ng of thi-
amethoxam per bee, 0.6 ng/bee and 2.4 ng/bee. The lar-
val/adult mortality was recorded until D22. The data
analysis of mortality showed that only exposition at the
higher concentration (2.4 ng/bee) led to significantly
higher mortality (p < 0.001, Figure 2).
Learning and memory behavioral tests
Learning and memory behavioral tests were performed
with workers that were 13–14 days old. At 13–14 days
old, they show better responses to odor and better
learning abilities than younger bees (Laloi et al., 2000).
Prior to the PER tests, honey bee workers were anes-
thetized by cooling them on ice until they became
motionless (Felsenberg, Gehring, Antemann, &
Eisenhardt, 2011). Bees were individually harnessed with
adhesive tape in metal tubes marked for individual iden-
tification. Every honey bee worker was restrained in a
way that allowed its proboscis to extend and its mouth
parts to move freely but that prevents other move-
ments. After harnessing the honey bee workers, they
were left for 3–4 h to recover in the dark at room
temperature (Giurfa & Sandoz, 2012).
Absolute conditioning procedure
In the present study, we followed the revised classical
olfactory conditioning method of the PER protocol
described by Matsumoto, Menzel, Sandoz, & Giurfa,
2012 with positive reinforcement. In most studies, a
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the main steps of the in
vitro larval rearing (modified from Medrzycki et al. 2013)
andexposure protocols (D = day, RH = relative humidity).Notes:
Different letters for diet indicate different diet compositions. At
D1 after grafting, larvae were exposed to Paenibacillus
larvaespores. D3 to D6 – chronic exposure to thiamethoxam (test
solution), which was added to the diet.
Larval exposure to thiamethoxam and American foulbrood 3
-
30% sugar solution is used (Matsumoto et al., 2012) but
considering the fact that our bees were reared in vitro
and fed with a 50% sugar solution during their develop-
ment, we used a 50% sugar solution as the uncondi-
tioned stimulus (US). As a conditioning stimulus (CS)
during the conditioning trials, we used 1-nonanol (Sigma
Aldrich) that had been freshly prepared before the con-
ditioning. For odor delivery, we used a 20 ml plastic syr-
inge containing a piece of filter paper (10 × 30 mm)soaked with
5 μl of the odorant.
At first, honey bee workers were tested for their
PER to sucrose by stimulating their antennae with a cot-
ton stick soaked in the sucrose solution. The individuals
who did not extend their proboscis were discarded
from the test. The conditioning site had a ventilation
hood for odor flow regulation and removal. Condition-
ing was performed using the following steps: a
harnessed honey bee worker was placed in the condi-
tioning site, and after 15 s, we presented the odor for
4 s, with a subsequent 4 s of sucrose stimulation and an
inter-stimulus interval (ISI) of 2 s. When the harnessed
honey bee worker was extending its proboscis, it was
allowed to drink. After the CS-US pairing, the harnessed
honey bee worker was left in the conditioning site for
15 s. The inter trial interval (ITI) was 10 min
(Matsumoto et al., 2012). Each bee received three
conditioning trials, and in total, we trained between 88
and 95 individuals per treatment.
Memory retention
Middle-term memory retention tests were performed
1 h after the last conditioning trial. In addition to the CS
(1-nonanol), we also used a novel odor (2-hexanol)
(Sigma Aldrich) as healthy workers are able to discrimi-
nate between those two odors (Guerrieri, Schubert,
Sandoz, & Giurfa, 2005). To test the memory of har-
nessed honey bee workers, the bee was placed in the
conditioning site, and after 15 s the test odor was pre-
sented for 4 s without sugar exposure. The bee was
exposed to both odors at different times, either the
conditioned odor (1-nonanol) or the novel odor (2-hex-
anol), with the two presentation trials separated by an
interval of 10 min and performed in a random order.
After the middle-term memory retention tests, all bees
were checked for their PER to sucrose. Individuals who
did not respond were discarded from the test. For all
treatments, we tested between 50 and 55 bees for mid-
dle-term memory.
To test long-term memory, bees were trained with
five conditioning trials (Menzel, 1999; Matsumoto et al.,
2012). After the last conditioning trial and 6 h before
the memory test, trained bees were fed with a sucrose
solution to avoid starvation and death. Bees were kept
in a dark place at room temperature overnight, and the
memory retention test was performed 24 h later. Each
bee was placed in the conditioning site, and after 15 s
the test odor was presented for 4 s without sugar
exposure. The bee was exposed to both odors, with an
interval of 10 min between trials as described for the
middle-term memory test. After the long-term
memory retention tests all bees were checked for their
PER to sucrose. In total, we tested between 38 and 42
individuals per treatment.
HPG development
One of the most common methods used to assess the
development of the HPG is to measure the protein con-
tent of the glands and to measure the diameter of the
HPG acini (Deseyn & Billen, 2005; DeGrandi-Hoffman,
Chen, Huang, & Huang, 2010; Gupta & Chandel, 1995).
Figure 2. Change in mortality after the chronic application of
three concentrations of thiamethoxam from day 4 to day 22.Note:
Each mortality was compared with the control sample at day 22 using
a χ2 test with 1 df (***, p < 0.001).
4 A. Papach et al.
-
In the present work, we used an indirect method of
testing HPG development that involved measuring the
total protein content in the head of the honey bee, simi-
lar to method used by Renzi et al. (2016).
To assess HPG activity, we used bees that were
13–14 days after emergence as adults that were killed
by freezing at −20 ˚C and stored until analysis. Totalhead
protein concentration was measured using the
entire head of the honey bee workers in the Bradford
protein assay, which is based on the reaction of the
proteins with a colorant. Heads were placed individually
in a tube with 300 μl of KH2PO4. To preserve the pro-teins,
tubes were placed on ice. Each head was pre-
ground for five seconds with the help of pellet pestle
and then further ground for one minute. After grinding,
500 μl of KH2PO4 (50 mM, pH 7) was added, and thetubes were
centrifuged for four minutes at 10,000
revolutions/minute at a temperature of 5 ˚C. From each
tube, we extracted 500 μl of supernatant. To measurethe protein
content, 20 μl of supernatant was mixedwith 1 ml of the Bradford
reactant. Proteins were mea-
sured with a spectrophotometer at 595 nm. In total, we
tested between 88 and 90 honey bees per treatment.
Data analysis
Cumulative larval mortality and adult emergence rates
were compared between the control group and each
treatment using multiple two-by-two χ2 tests with 1 dfand a
critical probability level of 0.012 based on a Dunn
Sidak correction of the standard probability level. To test
for a potential additive effect of co-exposure on mortality
on day 22, we used the formula proposed by Aufauvre
et al. (2012): χ2 = (Mo−ME)2/ME, where Mo is the
observed mortality in the group that received both the
pesticide and pathogen and ME is the expected mortality
calculated using the following formula: ME = MAF + MT(1 −
MAF/100), where MAF and MT are the observed per-cent mortalities
caused by P. larvae and thiamethoxam
alone. The results of the calculated χ2 were comparedwith the χ2
table values with 1 df. The interactions wereconsidered synergistic
when the calculated χ2 valueexceeded the table value and the
difference between Moand ME had a positive value.
The results of PER conditioning were analyzed with
a one-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s least significant
difference (LSD) test (p < 0.05). All analyses were
performed using R (R Core Team 2013).
Results
Development stages and mortality
The mortality at the six time intervals during the test
are presented in Figure 3. During the larval stage (days
3–8), cumulative mortality in the control group was
approximately 6% (Figure 3), which is below the stan-
dard acceptance threshold (≤15%) for in vitro rearingconditions
(Crailsheim et al., 2013).
Cumulative mortality at the end of the larval stage
(D8) was increased in all groups fed P. larvae spores com-
pared to that of the control group (Am F: χ2 = 27.2, df:1,p <
0.01; Am F × TMX high: χ2 = 30.4, df:1, p < 0.01; AmF × TMX low:
χ2 = 17.8, df:1, p < 0.01).
The adult emergence rate in the control group was
82% (Figure 4), which is above the acceptance threshold
(≥70%) for in vitro rearing conditions (Crailsheim et al.,2013).
Feeding honey bee larvae only thiamethoxam
(0.6 ng) had no significant effect on worker emergence
rate when compared to that of the control group
(χ2 = 1.75, df:1, p > 0.01; Figure 4). However, weobserved
the lowest adult emergence rate (58%) when
the larvae were co-exposed to Am F × TMX high(χ2 = 77.2, df:1, p
< 0.01). The exposure of honey beelarvae to Am F and the
co-exposure with Am F × TMXlow also resulted in significantly lower
adult emergence
rates (χ2 = 48.8, df:1, p < 0.01 and χ2 = 37.3, df:1,p <
0.01, respectively).
No additive effect of thiamethoxam was detected on
the larval mortality caused by American foulbrood
(Mo = 41.8%, ME = 45.9%, χ2 = 1.82).
Learning and memory behavioral performance
To test the impact of thiamethoxam and/or American
foulbrood on honey bee learning abilities, restrained
workers were subjected to a PER assay. Figure 5 shows
the percentage of bees responding to the CS during three
learning trials in the control group and in the treated
groups (N = 95 control, N = 88 Am F, N = 90 TMX,
N = 95 Am F × TMX high and N = 94 Am F × TMX low).At the end of
the conditioning (trial 3), the highest PER
rate to the CS was recorded in the control group (61%),
while the lowest PER rate was observed in the group that
was treated with the high rate of TMX (42%). Overall,
feeding larvae thiamethoxam and/or P. larvae spores did
not result in a statistically significant change in the
propor-
tion of non-responding adult bees (F4,457 = 2.12,
p = 0.07). Nonetheless, a pairwise comparison revealed
reduced PER rates to the CS in the groups exposed to
TMX (Fisher LSD: p = 0.01) and to Am F × TMX low(Fisher LSD: p =
0.03).
Middle-term memory
In memory tests 1 h after the last conditioning trial,
bees in all groups showed more responses to the CS
(1-nonanol) than to the novel odor (2-hexanol) (McNe-
mar test: control: χ2 = 8.05, p < 0.005; Am F: χ2 = 8.33,p
< 0.005; TMX: χ2 = 28.12, p < 0.001 Am F × TMXhigh: χ2 =
13.33, p < 0.001; Am F × TMX low: χ2 = 8.33,p < 0.005). This
confirms that the honey bee workers
had a CS-specific memory and the ability to distinguish
between odors was not affected by exposure to any of
the treatments.
CS-specific memory was compared among the
groups by computing the percentage of individuals
Larval exposure to thiamethoxam and American foulbrood 5
-
responding to the CS (Figure 6(a)). Feeding larvae the
pesticide and/or pathogen did not affect the percentage
of bees responding to the CS (F4,257 = 2.23, p = 0.06).
However, a pairwise comparison showed that feeding
larvae thiamethoxam led to the impairment of middle-
term memory (Fisher LSD: p = 0.004).
Long-term memory
The effects of the treatments on long-term memory
performance were tested 24 h after the conditioning
(Figure 6(b)). The bees used for these tests received
two extra trials, and in total, we used 200 bees for the
long-term memory tests (control N = 42; Am F N = 35;
Figure 3. Change in mortality after the application of the
treatments from day 3 to day 22.Notes: Am F: larvae exposed to
Paenibacillus larvae spores, causing American foulbrood disease.
TMX: larvae exposed tothiamethoxam. Am F × TMX high: larvae
co-exposed to 800 Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.6 ng
thiamethoxam. Am F × TMX low:larvae co-exposed to 400 Paenibacillus
larvae spores and 0.3 ng thiamethoxam.
Figure 4. Effect of the treatments applied during the larval
stage on adult emergence rate. Each emergence rate was comparedwith
that of the control group using a χ2 test with 1 df (*p <
0.01).Notes: Am F: larvae exposed to Paenibacillus larvae spores,
causing American foulbrood disease. TMX: larvae exposed
tothiamethoxam. Am F × TMX high: larvae co-exposed to 800
Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.6 ng thiamethoxam. Am F × TMX
low:larvae co-exposed to 400 Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.3 ng
thiamethoxam.
6 A. Papach et al.
-
TMX N = 38; Am F × TMX high N = 41; Am F × TMXlow N = 44). The
PER rate to the CS stayed at the same
level during trials four and five in all groups and was the
same as that at the end of the third trial (control:
χ2 = 0.05, p > 0.05; Am F: χ2 = 0.06, p > 0.05; TMX:χ2 =
0, p > 0.05; Am F × TMX high: χ2 = 0.05, p > 0.05;Am F × TMX
low: χ2 = 0.05, p > 0.05).
Exposing honey bee larvae to thiamethoxam and/or
American foulbrood resulted in different CS response
rates between the groups (F4,195 = 2.42, p = 0.04). Bees
from the control group showed better performance
compare to bees that were fed TMX (Fisher LSD:
p = 0.02), Am F × TMX high (Fisher LSD: p = 0.02), andAm F × TMX
low (Fisher LSD: p = 0.003) during thelarval stage. In bees that
were fed Am F during the larval
stage, we noticed a tendency for impaired long-term
memory (Fisher LSD: p = 0.06).
HPGs development
To evaluate HPG development in adult bees, we com-
pared the total head protein concentrations in adult’s
that received different treatments at the larval stage.
Comparisons between our control group and the
groups exposed the either thiamethoxam or P. larvae
spores or co-exposed to both show that there was no
significant impact of exposure at the larval stage on
adult bees HPGs (F4,439 = 2.31, p = 0.056, Figure 7).
Discussion
Honey bee survival at the different stages
All honey bee workers were reared in vitro since the
larval stage and were either not exposed (control) or
were exposed to a pesticide (the neonicotinoid thi-
amethoxam), to a pathogen (spores of P. larvae, the cau-
sative agent of American foulbrood) or to both at two
different concentrations. The observed larval mortality
and adult emergence rates in the control group were
comparable to the mortality and emergence rates
observed when larvae were exposed to thiamethoxam
at the highest concentration (0.6 ng/larvae), which cor-
responded to a sub-lethal dose in our experiments. To
put this value into perspective, we compared it with the
sub-lethal dose of thiamethoxam for adult honey bees
(1.34 ng/bee) (European Food and Safety Authority,
2013). The doses used in our experiment are lower
than that value; however, it has been suggested that
honey bee larvae are more tolerant to some of neoni-
cotinoids than adults (Tavares et al., 2015; Yang et al.,
2012). Interestingly, the sub-lethal effects on the devel-
opment of Africanized honey bee larvae of chronic
exposure to thiamethoxam has been demonstrated at
higher doses (56.4 ng/larva) than those used in our
study for the sub-species Apis mellifera ligustica (Tavares
et al., 2015). Then again, it seems that larvae of the stin-
gless bee (Scaptotrigona aff. depilis) are much more sensi-
tive to thiamethoxam than the honey bee (Apis mellifera
Figure 5. Learning curves showing the proportion of restrained
honey bee workers responding with a proboscis extension to
theconditioned odor during 3 conditioning trials. Number of
responding workers in each treatment was compared with the number
ofresponding workers in the control group. Fisher LSD (*p <
0.05).Notes: Am F: larvae exposed to Paenibacillus larvae spores,
causing American foulbrood disease. TMX: larvae exposed
tothiamethoxam. Am F × TMX high: larvae co-exposed to 800
Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.6 ng thiamethoxam. Am F × TMX
low:larvae co-exposed to 400 Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.3 ng
thiamethoxam.
Larval exposure to thiamethoxam and American foulbrood 7
-
ligustica). In this species, thiamethoxam induces
increased mortality and shorter development times at a
concentration 0.044 ng/larva (Rosa et al., 2016). Notice-
ably, the observed and reported values are highly vari-
able, suggesting a considerable variation in tolerance
among species and sub-species. Moreover, several stud-
ies have concluded that susceptibility to neonicotinoids
depends on genetics, the specific life cycle stage, and dif-
ferences in nesting activity and foraging behavior (God-
fray et al., 2014; Laurino, Porporato, & Patetta, 2011;
Sandrock et al., 2014; vanEnglesdorp et al., 2009), fur-
ther suggesting that it can vary considerably. For that
reason, the permissible doses of pesticides should be
reconsidered after taking into account the substantial
variation that exists in susceptibility among species.
We also exposed honey bee larvae to P. larvae
spores alone and at two different concentrations along
with the pesticide. As variations in virulence are geno-
type dependent (Genersch et al., 2005), we calculated
the larval mortality caused by the strain used in our
study. A mortality rate of up to 42% (24% more than in
the control group) occurred primarily within 5–15 days
post-infection. The mortality rate was not influenced by
either the quantity of the spores alone or by the addi-
tional exposure to the pesticide, even when the quantity
of spores was reduced by half. The other strain, JT-79,
has been shown to cause mortality rates ranging from
25 to 55%, depending on spore dose (ranging from 3 to
24) (Brødsgaard, Ritter, Hansen, & Brødsgaard, 2000).
The time course of infection in our study was not
(a)
(b)
Figure 6. Memory retrieval of the conditioned proboscis
response. Bars represent the proportion of restrained honey
beeworkers that showed the conditioned response to the presented
odor 1 h after the last conditioning trial (a) and 24 h after the
lastconditioning trial (b). Fisher LSD test (*p < 0.05 and **p
< 0.01).Notes: Am F: larvae exposed to Paenibacillus larvae
spores, causing American foulbrood disease. TMX: larvae exposed
tothiamethoxam. Am F × TMX high: larvae co-exposed to 800
Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.6 ng thiamethoxam. Am F × TMX
low:larvae co-exposed to 400 Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.3 ng
thiamethoxam.
8 A. Papach et al.
-
influenced by spore concentration, as has been shown
in a previous study (Genersch et al., 2005).
No additive effect of thiamethoxam was found on
the mortality caused by American foulbrood. A study of
the interactions between American foulbrood, acute
paralysis virus (APV) and Varroa jacobsoni in various
inoculation combinations at the larval stage revealed no
additive mortality caused by P. larvae spores (Brødsgaard
et al., 2000). Among the other studies testing the inter-
actions between pesticides and pathogens on honey bee
species, the majority have revealed additive effects on
mortality (Alaux et al., 2010; Di Prisco et al., 2013;
Doublet et al., 2015; Pettis et al., 2012; Retschnig et al.,
2014; Vidau et al., 2011) however, this is not always the
case. It has been noted that there is lack of studies
assessing the importance of the sequence of exposure
to the different factors (Holmstrup et al., 2010), which
was later demonstrated in a co-exposure study on the
interaction between one pathogen and one insecticide
on the mortality of honey bee adults by Aufauvre et al.
(2012). In their study, they paid attention to the
sequence of exposure and noted that the most signifi-
cant interaction between the factors was detected when
they were applied simultaneously.
Learning and memory behavioral performance
Successful learning and memory ensures successful for-
aging behavior, which is important for colony survival.
Impaired learning negatively affects individual bee forag-
ing, and it may jeopardize colony survival (Bryden, Gill,
Mitton, Raine, & Jansen, 2013; Gill & Raine, 2014;
San-
drock et al., 2014). In the present work, we provide the
first evidence of impaired learning and memory in adult
bees that were exposed to thiamethoxam during the
larval stage. Chronic larval exposure to sub-lethal doses
of this neonicotinoid resulted in alterations of associa-
tive behavior in adults. Impaired learning in adults has
also been revealed when honey bee larvae are chroni-
cally exposed to sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid (Yang
et al., 2012).
Impaired learning and memory in honey bee adults
exposed to sub-lethal doses of neonicotinoids has been
shown in many previous studies (Aliouane et al., 2009;
Blacquière, Smagghe, van Gestel, & Mommaerts, 2012;
Decourtye et al., 2004; Potts et al., 2010; Tan et al.,
2015; Vanbergen & The Insect Pollinators Initiative,
2013). For example, impaired long-term memory in
honey bee workers due to chronic thiamethoxam
exposure was observed at a concentration of 0.1 ng/bee
(Aliouane et al., 2009).
Pathogens/parasites are known to alter a host’s
behavior in many different ways (Combes, 2001), while
minimal attention has been devoted to the indirect
effects of pathogens on learning and memory. For exam-
ple, learning and memory can be altered by endosym-
bionts such as the bacteria Wolbachia in terrestrial
isopods (Templé & Richard, 2015), and the parasitic
mite Varroa destructor can impair non-associative learning
in honey bee adults (Kralj, Brockmann, Fuchs, & Tautz,
2007). In the present study, we tested both learning and
memory in individuals treated with P. larvae spores.
P. larvae spores are known to be highly virulent at the
larval stage, killing the host within very short time (Gen-
ersch et al., 2005). In our study, 64% of the treated lar-
vae survived P. larvae spore treatment to potentially
show physiological alterations or were asymptomatic
and had the potential to become contagious individuals.
Figure 7. Protein concentration in the heads of honey bee
workers at 13–14 days old (mean ± SEM).Notes: Number of replicates
is between 87 and 90 individuals per treatment. Am F: larvae
exposed to Paenibacillus larvae spores,causing American foulbrood
disease. TMX: larvae exposed to thiamethoxam. Am F × TMX high:
larvae co-exposed to 800 Paenibacil-lus larvae spores and 0.6 ng
thiamethoxam. Am F × TMX low: larvae co-exposed to 400
Paenibacillus larvae spores and 0.3 ngthiamethoxam.
Larval exposure to thiamethoxam and American foulbrood 9
-
When honey bee larvae are infected, P. larvae germinate
in the midgut, causing possible side effects. For example,
it has been shown that gut bacteria (Lactobacillus strain)
can induce alterations in the brains of mice (Bravo
et al., 2011). However, in our experimental conditions,
individuals exposed to P. larvae spores revealed no
impairments in learning or memory compared to
untreated individuals.
A reduced positive PER rate was observed during
learning performance and long-term memory tests in the
group exposed to both thiamethoxam and P. larvae
spores at lower concentrations. Surprisingly, we did not
observe alterations in learning behavior in the group co-
exposed to the higher doses. A possible explanation for
this is that selection occurred during the development
stages. The honey bee larvae that were treated with both
0.6 ng of thiamethoxam and 800 P. larvae spores had the
highest mortality rate (42%). Therefore, in this treatment,
only the strongest individuals survived, and this selection
could mask the negative impact of thiamethoxam.
HPG activity
In the present study, we also looked at the activity of
the HGP glands. These glands secrete the “brood food”
which is rich in proteins and is used to feed larvae of all
castes (Sagili & Pankiw, 2007). HPG activity is age
dependent: HPGs are well developed in nursing bees
that feed the brood (Crailsheim et al., 1992), but with
age, they stop producing proteins. In bees reared in
cages, HPGs are not very well developed relative to
those of bees from colonies (Crailsheim et al., 1992). In
nurse bees in a colony the maximum development and
productivity of HPGs are on days 8–12 after emergence,
and they subsequently start to decrease in size (Deseyn
& Billen, 2005). In our experiment, we measured the
total concentration of proteins in the workers’ heads as
a measure of HPG activity at 13–14 days after emer-
gence (Renzi et al., 2016). HPG activity was not altered
by exposure to 4 ppb of thiamethoxam, by infection
with P. larvae or by co-exposure with both of these
stressors. In contrast, previous studies have shown that
exposing honey bees to neonicotinoids negatively affects
HPG productivity and size. For example, chronic expo-
sure of honey bees to sub-lethal concentrations of thi-
amethoxam (10 and 40 ppb) has been shown to result
in decreased amounts of total head protein and acini
size (Renzi et al., 2016). The acute or chronic exposure
of honey bees to sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid causes
a reduction acini size (Hatjina et al., 2013; Heylen,
Gobin, Arckens, Huybrechts, & Billen, 2011).
General conclusion
Our results suggest that there are no interactions
between the common neonicotinoid thiamethoxam and
the widespread disease American foulbrood in exposure
sequence tested here. Still, the present work provides
the first evidence of impaired learning and memory in
adult bees that were fed thiamethoxam (0.6 ng/bee) dur-
ing the larval stage. Our work did not reveal any signifi-
cant changes in HPG activity in bees that were infected
with American foulbrood or exposed to thiamethoxam
(0.6 ng/bee) during the larval stage.
Authors contributions
SG performed beekeeping activities and provided biolog-
ical material. AP performed the larval rearing and expo-
sure protocols and the learning and memory tests. AP
and DF performed the HPG analysis. AP, PA and FJR
analyzed the data. FJR, PA, DF and SG designed the
experiments and supervised the work in the respective
laboratories. AP and FJR wrote the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Carole Moreau-Vauzelle for Paenibacil-lus
larvae maintenance. The authors would also like to thankAmerican
Journal Experts for their assessment of Englishquality.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Funding
This project was financially supported by the European
Com-mission through the program Erasmus Mundus Master Course–
International Master in Applied Ecology (EMMC-IMAE) [grantnumber
FPA 532524-1-FR-2012-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC].
ORCID
Freddie-Jeanne Richard http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2796-1181
References
Aebi, A., Vaissière, B.E., vanEnglesdorp, D., Delaplane, K.,
Rou-bik, D.W., & Neumann, P. (2012). Back to the future:
Apisversus non-Apis pollination—a response to Ollerton et al.Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 142–143.
Alaux, C., Brunet, J.L., Dussaubat, C., Mondet, F.,
Tchamitchan,S., Cousin, M., … Le Conte, Y. (2010). Interactions
betweenNosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees
(Apis mellifera). Environmental Microbiology, 12, 774–782.
Aliouane, Y., El Hassani, A.K., Gary, V., Armengaud, C.,
Lambin,M., & Gauthier, M. (2009). Subchronic exposure of
honeybees to sublethal doses of pesticides: Effects on
behavior.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28, 113–122.
Aufauvre, J., Biron, D.G., Vidau, C., Fontbonne, R., Roudel,
M.,Diogon, M., … Blot, N. (2012). Parasite-insecticide
interac-tions: A case study of Nosema ceranae and fipronil
synergyon honey bee. Scientific Reports, 2(326), 1–7.
Aupinel, P., Fortini, D., Dufour, H., Tasei, J.N., Michaud,
B.,Odoux, J.-F., & Pham-Delegue, M.H. (2005). Improvementof
artificial feeding in a standard in vitro method for rearingApis
mellifera larvae. Bulletin of Insectology, 58, 107–111.
Blacquière, T., Smagghe, G., van Gestel, C.A.M., &
Mommaerts,V. (2012). Neonicotinoids in bees: A review on
concentra-
10 A. Papach et al.
http://orcid.orghttp://orcid.orghttp://orcid.orghttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2796-1181
-
tions, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology,
21,973–992.
Bravo, J.A., Forsythe, P., Chew, M.V., Escaravage, E.,
Savignac,H.M., Dinan, T.G., … Cryan, J.F. (2011). Ingestion of
Lacto-bacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and centralGABA
receptor expression in a mouse via the vagusnerve. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 108(38), 16050–16055.
Brødsgaard, C.J., Ritter, W., Hansen, H., & Brødsgaard,
H.F.(2000). Interactions among Varroa jacobsoni mites,
acuteparalysis virus, and Paenibacillus larvae larvae and their
influ-ence on mortality of larval honey bees in vitro.
Apidologie,31, 543–554.
Bryden, J., Gill, R.J., Mitton, R.A.A., Raine, N.E., &
Jansen,V.A.A. (2013). Chronic sublethal stress causes bee
colonyfailure. Ecology Letters, 16, 1463–1469.
Combes, C. (2001). Parasitism : The ecology and evolution of
inti-mate interactions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Crailsheim, K., Brodschneider, R., Aupinel, P., Behrens,
D.,Genersch, E., Vollmann, J., & Riessberger-Gallé, U.
(2013).Standard methods for artificial rearing of Apis mellifera
lar-vae. In V. Dietemann, J.D. Ellis, & P. Neumann (Eds.),
TheCOLOSS BEEBOOK, Volume I: standard methods for Apismellifera
research. Journal of Apicultural Research,
52(1).doi:10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.05
Crailsheim, K., Schneider, L.H.W., Hrassnigg, N., Bühlmann,G.,
Brosch, U., Gmeinbauer, R., & Schöffmann, B. (1992).Pollen
consumption and utilization in worker honey bees(Apis mellifera
carnica): Dependence on individual age andfunction. Journal of
Insect Physiology, 38, 409–419.
Decourtye, A., Armengaud, C., Renou, M., Devillers, J.,Cluzeau,
S., Gauthier, M., & Pham-Delègue, M.H. (2004).Imidacloprid
impairs memory and brain metabolism in thehoney bee (Apis mellifera
L.). Pesticide Biochemistry andPhysiology, 78, 83–92.
DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., Chen, Y., Huang, E., & Huang,
M.H.(2010). The effect of diet on protein
concentration,hypopharyngeal gland development and virus load
inworker honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Jouranl of Insect
Physi-ology, 56, 1184–1191.
Deseyn, J., & Billen, J. (2005). Age-dependent morphology
andultrastructure of the hypopharyngeal gland of Apis
melliferaworkers (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Apidologie, 36, 49–57.
Di Prisco, G., Cavaliere, V., Annoscia, D., Varricchio,
P.,Caprio, E., Nazzi, F., Gargiulo, G., & Pennacchio, F.
(2013).Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect
immu-nity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in
honeybees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
110,18466–18471.
Doublet, V., Labarussias, M., Miranda, J.R., Moritz, R.F.A.,
&Paxton, R.J. (2015). Bees under stress: Sublethal doses of
aneonicotinoid pesticide and pathogens interact to elevatehoney bee
mortality across the life cycle. EnvironmentalMicrobiology, 17,
969–983.
Felsenberg, J., Gehring, K.B., Antemann, V., & Eisenhardt,
D.(2011). Behavioural pharmacology in classical conditioningof the
proboscis extension response in honey bees (Apismellifera). Journal
of Visualized Experiments, (47), e2282.doi:10.3791/2282
European Food and Safety Authority. (2013). Conclusion on
thepeer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for
theactive substance thiamethoxam. EFSA Journal, 11, 68.
Frisch, K. (1967). The dance language and orientation of
bees.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Genersch, E. (2010). American foulbrood in honey bees andits
causative agent, Paenibacillus larvae. Journal of
InvertebratePathology, 103, S10–S19.
Genersch, E., Ashiralieva, A., & Fries, I. (2005). Strain-
andgenotype-specific differences in virulence of Paenibacillus
larvae subsp. larvae, a bacterial pathogen causing
americanfoulbrood disease in honey bees. Applied and
EnvironmentalMicrobiology, 71, 7551–7555.
Gill, R.J., & Raine, N.E. (2014). Chronic impairment of
bumblebee natural foraging behaviour induced by sublethal
pesti-cide exposure. Functional Ecology, 28, 1459–1471.
Giurfa, M., & Sandoz, J.-C. (2012). Invertebrate learning
andmemory: Fifty years of olfactory conditioning of theproboscis
extension response in honey bees. Learning &Memory, 19,
54–66.
Godfray, H.C.J., Blacquière, T., Field, L.M., Hails, R.S.,
Petrokof-sky, G., Potts, S.G., … McLean, A.R. (2014). A
restatementof the natural science evidence base concerning
neonicoti-noid insecticides and insect pollinators.
Proceedings.Biological sciences/The Royal Society, 281,
20140558.
Guerrieri, F., Schubert, M., Sandoz, J.C., & Giurfa, M.
(2005).Perceptual and neural olfactory similarity in honey
bees.PLoS Biology, 3, 0718–0732.
Gupta, P.R., & Chandel, R.S. (1995). Effects of
diflubenzuronand penfluron on workers of Apis cerana indica F and
Apismellifera L. Apidologie, 26, 3–10.
Hatjina, F., Papaefthimiou, C., Charistos, L., Dogaroglu,
T.,Bouga, M., Emmanouil, C., & Arnold, G. (2013).
Sublethaldoses of imidacloprid decreased size of
hypopharyngealglands and respiratory rhythm of honey bees in
vivo.Apidologie, 44, 467–480.
Heylen, K., Gobin, B., Arckens, L., Huybrechts, R., &
Billen, J.(2011). The effects of four crop protection products
onthe morphology and ultrastructure of the hypopharyngealgland of
the European honey bee, Apis mellifera. Apidologie,42, 103–116.
Holmstrup, M., Bindesbøl, A.M., Oostingh, G.J., Duschl,
A.,Scheil, V., Köhler, H.R., … Spurgeon, D.J. (2010).
Interac-tions between effects of environmental chemicals and
nat-ural stressors: A review. Science of The Total Environment,408,
3746–3762.
Kralj, J., Brockmann, A., Fuchs, S., & Tautz, J. (2007). The
para-sitic mite Varroa destructor affects non-associative
learningin honey bee foragers, Apis mellifera L. Journal of
Compara-tive Physiology A, 193, 363–370.
Laloi, D., Bailez, O., Blight, M. M., Roger, B.,
Pham-Delègue,M.H., & Wadhams, L.J. (2000). Recognition of
complexodors by restrained and free-flying honey bees, Apis
mellif-era. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 26, 2307–2319.
Laurino, D., Porporato, M., & Patetta, A. (2011). Toxicity
ofneonicotinoid insecticides to honey bees: Laboratory
tests.Bulletin of Insectology, 64, 107–113.
Matsumoto, Y., Menzel, R., Sandoz, J.C., & Giurfa, M.
(2012).Revisiting olfactory classical conditioning of the
proboscisextension response in honey bees: A step toward
stan-dardized procedures. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 211(1),
159–167.
Medrzycki, P., Giffard, H., Aupinel, P., Belzunces, L.P.,
Chauzat,M.-P., Claßen, C, … Vidau, C. (2013). Standard methodsfor
toxicology research in Apis mellifera. In V. Dietemann,J.D. Ellis
& P. Neumann (Eds.), The COLOSS BEEBOOK,Volume I: standard
methods for Apis mellifera research.Journal of Apicultural Research
(Vol. 52). Retrieved
fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.4.14
Menzel, R. (1999). Memory dynamics in the honey bee. Journalof
Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and
BehavioralPhysiology, 185, 323–340.
Mullin, C.A., Frazier, M., Frazier, J.L., Ashcraft, S., Simonds,
R.,vanEnglesdorp, D., & Pettis, J.S. (2010). High levels of
miti-cides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries:
Impli-cations for honey bee health. PLoS ONE, 5(3), 1–19.
Pettis, J.S., vanEnglesdorp, D., Johnson, J., & Dively, G.
(2012). Pes-ticide exposure in honey bees results in increased
levels of thegut pathogenNosema.Naturwissenschaften, 99,
153–158.
Larval exposure to thiamethoxam and American foulbrood 11
https://doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.05https://doi.org/10.3791/2282http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.4.14
-
Pilling, E., Campbell, P., Coulson, M., Ruddle, N., &
Tornier, I.(2013). A four-year field program investigating
long-termeffects of repeated exposure of honey bee colonies to
flower-ing crops treated with thiamethoxam. PLoS ONE, 8(10),
1–14.
Pohorecka, K., Skubida, P., Miszczak, A., Semkiw, P.,
Sikorski,P., Zagibajo, K., … Zdanska, D. (2012). Residues of
neoni-cotinoid insecticides in bee collected plant materials
fromoilseed rape crops and their effect on bee colonies. Journalof
Apicultural Science, 56, 115–134.
Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann,
P.,Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W.E. (2010). Global
pollinatordeclines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology
&Evolution, 25, 345–353.
Renzi, M.T., Rodrı́guez-Gasol, N., Medrzycki, P., Porrini,
C.,Martini, A., Burgio, G., Maini, S., & Sgolastra, F.
(2016).Combined effect of pollen quality and thiamethoxam
onhypopharyngeal gland development and protein content inApis
mellifera. Apidologie, 47, 779–788.
Retschnig, G., Neumann, P., & Williams, G.R. (2014).
Thiacloprid–Nosema ceranae interactions in honey bees: Host
survivorshipbut not parasite reproduction is dependent on pesticide
dose.Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 118, 18–19.
Rosa, A., Teixeira, J.S.G., Vollet-Neto, A., Queiroz, E.P.,
Blochtein,B., Pires, C.S.S., & Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L. (2016).
Consump-tion of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam during the
larvalstage affects the survival and development of the
stinglessbee, Scaptotrigona aff. depilis. Apidologie, 47,
729–738.
Sagili, R.R., & Pankiw, T. (2007). Effects of
protein-constrainedbrood food on honey bee (Apis mellifera L.)
pollen foragingand colony growth. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology, 61,1471–1478.
Sandrock, S., Tanadini, M., Tanadini, L.G., Fauser-Misslin,
A.,Potts, S.G., & Neumann, P. (2014). Impact of
chronicneonicotinoid exposure on honey bee colony performanceand
queen supersedure. PLoS ONE, 9(8), 1–13.
Schneider, C.W., Tautz, J., Grünewald, B., & Fuchs, S.
(2012).RFID tracking of sublethal effects of two
neonicotinoidinsecticides on the foraging behavior of Apis
mellifera. PLoSONE, 7(1), 1–9.
Tan, K., Chen, W., Dong, S., Liu, X., Wang, Y., & Nieh,
J.C.(2015). A neonicotinoid impairs olfactory learning in
Asianhoney bees (Apis cerana) exposed as larvae or as
adults.Scientific Reports, 5, 1–8.
Tavares, D. A., Roat, T.C., Carvalho, S.M.,
Silva-Zacarin,E.C.M., & Malaspina, O. (2015). In vitro effects
ofthiamethoxam on larvae of Africanized honey bee Apis mel-lifera
(Hymenoptera: Apidae). Chemosphere, 135, 370–378.
Templé, N., & Richard, F.-J. (2015). Intra-cellular
bacterialinfections affect learning and memory capacities of
aninvertebrate. Frontiers in Zoology, 12(1), 145.
Vanbergen, A., & The Insect Pollinators Initiative.
(2013).Threats to an ecosystem service: Pressures on
pollinators.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11,
251–259.
vanEnglesdorp, D., Evans, J., Saegerman, C., Mullin,
C.,Haubruge, E., Nguyen, B., … Pettis, J. (2009). Colony col-lapse
disorder: A descriptive study. PLoS ONE, 4(8), 1–17.
vanEnglesdorp, D., & Meixner, M.D. (2010). A historical
reviewof managed honey bee populations in Europe and the Uni-ted
States and the factors that may affect them. Journal ofInvertebrate
Pathology, 103, S80–S95.
Vidau, C., Diogon, M., Aufauvre, J., Fontbonne, R., Viguès,
B.,Brunet, J.L., … Delbac, F. (2011). Exposure to sublethaldoses of
fipronil and thiacloprid highly increases mortalityof honey bees
previously infected by Nosema ceranae. PLoSONE, 6(6), 1–8.
Yang, E.C., Chang, H.C., Wu, W.Y., & Chen, Y.W.
(2012).Impaired olfactory associative behavior of honey beeworkers
due to contamination of imidacloprid in the larvalstage. PLoS ONE,
7(11), 1–8.
12 A. Papach et al.
Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Larval rearing and
exposure American foulbrood exposure Thiamethoxam exposure Learning
and memory behavioral tests Absolute conditioning procedure Memory
retention
HPG development Data analysis
Results Development stages and mortality Learning and memory
behavioral performance Middle-term memory Long-term memory HPGs
development
Discussion Honey bee survival at the different stages Learning
and memory behavioral performance HPG activity
General conclusion Authors contributionsAcknowledgements
Disclosure statement FundingORCIDReferences