Simulating the Effects of Pesticides on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Colonies with BeePop+

Le résumé fourni par la source

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) employs a tiered process for assessing risks of pesticides to bees. The model discussed in this paper focuses on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). If risks to honey bees are identified at the first tier based on exposure and toxicity data for individual adult and larval honey bees, then effects are evaluated in higher-tier studies using honey bee colonies. Colony-level studies require large amounts of resources (to conduct and review) and can yield data complicated by the inherent variability of colonies, which are influenced by factors that cannot readily be controlled, including weather, pests, diseases, available forage, and bee management practices. To better interpret these data, the USEPA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed a simulation model, BeePop+, that assesses potential honey bee colony-level effects of pesticides. Here, we describe this model using the population model guidance, use, interpretation, and development for ecological risk assessment (Pop-GUIDE) framework, which is a conceptual framework for the development and evaluation of population models. Within the context of Pop-GUIDE, BeePop+ is considered a “realistic-precise” model and reflects the inherent variability of colony response to pesticide exposure by simulating many outcomes. This model meets the desired features needed for use in pesticide risk assessments as its required data inputs are typically available, it is applicable to different US locations, and the outputs are both relevant to USEPA’s protection goals for honey bees and are consistent with the outcomes of empirical studies. This model has also been evaluated using available empirical colony-level data; however, additional evaluation with other studies may still be done in the future prior to completing implementation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.