Bumblebee mouthparts exhibit poor acuity for the detection of pesticides in nectar

  1. Department of Biology, the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  2. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College, London

Peer review process

Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.

Read more about eLife’s peer review process.

Editors

  • Reviewing Editor
    Sergio Rasmann
    University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
  • Senior Editor
    Christian Rutz
    University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Parkinson and colleagues address an interesting and important question, i.e., whether the bumblebee Bombus terrestris can perceive field-realistic concentrations of different pesticides in a sugar solution mimicking nectar. The study directly follows up on a previous study conducted by the same team (Kessler et al. 2015, Nature), which was partly questioned by another more recent study (Arce et al. 2018, Proc. R. Soc. B). The authors apply a combination of electrophysiological measurements and behavioral feeding tests to answer this question. Their results strongly suggest that B. terrestris workers are not able to perceive field-realistic doses of pesticides in a sugar solution. They additionally show that B. terrestris can physiologically differentiate between solutions varying in sugar composition.

Strengths:

Sophisticated methodology, a combination of approaches, clear and precise language

Weaknesses:

Topic and study implications could be discussed more broadly, the statistical approach is not fully clear to me.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript is part of the Wright lab's ongoing studies that investigate whether the bumblebee B. terrestris can detect the presence of pesticides when feeding. Previously, they showed that B. terrestris cannot detect neonicotinoids and would prefer food containing neonicotinoids (Kessler et al. 2015). However, in that paper, they showed that B. terrestris cannot taste neonicotinoids but did not provide evidence on why B. terrestris prefer food containing neonicotinoids. In the current paper, the authors continue to suggest that B. terrestris cannot taste neonicotinoids as well as another insecticide, sulfoxaflor, based on additional behavioral experiments and electrophysiological experiments focusing on specific GRNs. While the data from these experiments continue to suggest that B. terrestris cannot taste these insecticides using their mouthparts, whether B. terrestris can actually perceive these insecticides, and why this species prefers food containing these compounds is still unknown.

Strengths:

The authors provided additional evidence that B. terrestris cannot taste neonicotinoids with their mouthparts.

Weaknesses:

There are too many overgeneralizations in the manuscript and parts of it are written in a way that seems to sound combative towards studies from other groups that came to slightly different conclusions from their previous paper.

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation