Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 4987–4996 | Cite as

Toxicity and side effects of some insecticides applied in cotton fields on Apis mellifera

  • Manal Abdel raouf Abdel mageed Abdel razikEmail author
Research Article


Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) provides not only bee products of immense value but also render invaluable free service as cross-pollination and propagation of several cultivated and wild species, thereby, maintaining biological diversity. Bee larvae and adults might be killed or suffer various sublethal effects when placed in contact with pollen and nectar contaminated with insecticides. The present work was conducted to investigate the toxicity of seven insecticides on laboratory using oral toxicity test and their side effects on A. mellifera in cotton fields. Results indicated that lambda-cyhalothrin was the most toxic-tested pesticide, recording the lowest LC50 and LC90 values at all tested periods and the lowest LT50 and LT90 at all tested concentrations, followed by abamectin, spinosad, chlorpyrifos, and emamectin benzoate. On the other side, dipel and pyridalyl recording the highest LC50 and LC90 at all tested periods and the highest LT50 and LT90 at all tested concentrations. As for the application of pesticides in cotton fields, the tested pesticides significantly increased the number of dead workers in comparison with control. The tested pesticides significantly decreased bee foraging activities, i.e., number of foraging workers, number of worker collecting nectar, number of worker gathering pollen grains, area of broad workers, and honey bee yields. Dipel and pyridalyl were the most safety pesticides on honey bee workers in laboratory and field, so it could be introduced as a component in IPM programs of cotton pests.


Toxicity Side effects Insecticides and honey bee workers Apis mellifera 


Author contribution

I am a single author, so, I conceived this research and designed experiments; design and interpretation of the data; carried out experiments and analysis; wrote the paper; and participated in the revisions.

The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Abbott WS (1925) A method for computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol 18:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alex A, Miles M (2011) Exposure of honey bees and other pollinating species to pesticides. 11th International Symposium of the ICP-BR Bee Protection Group. Wageningen (The Netherlands) 2–4:19–29. Google Scholar
  3. Aljedani DM (2017) Effects of abamectin and deltamethrin to the foragers honeybee workers of Apis mellifera jemenatica (Hymenoptera: Apidae) under laboratory conditions. Saudi J Biol Sci 24:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badawy M, Nasr HM, Rabea EI (2015) Toxicity and biochemical changes in the honey bee Apis mellifera exposed to four insecticides under laboratory conditions. Apidologie 46:177–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biondi A, Mommaerts V, Smagghe G, Viñuela E, Zappalà L, Desneux N (2012) The non-target impact of spinosyns on beneficial arthropods. Pest Manag Sci 68:1523–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chauzat MP, Faucon JP, Martel AC, Lachaize J, Cougoule N, Aubert M (2006) A survey of pesticide residues in pollen loads collected by honey bees in France. J Econ Entomol 99:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colin ME, Bonmatin JM, Moineau I, Gaimon C, Brun S, Vermandere JP (2004) A method to quantify and analyze the foraging activity of honey bees: relevance to the sublethal effects induced by systemic insecticides. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 47:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copping LG, Menn JJ (2000) Biopesticides: a review of their action, applications and efficacy. Pest Manag Sci 56:651–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa EM, Araujo EL, Maia AVP, Silva FEL, Bezerra CES, Silva JG (2014) Toxicity of insecticides used in the Brazilian melon crop to the honey bee Apis mellifera under laboratory conditions. Apidologie 45:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CoStat version 6.400 Copyright © 1998–2008 (n.d.) Cohort Software. 798 Lighthouse Ave. PMB 320, Monterey, CA, 93940, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutler GC, Purdy J, Giesy JP, Solomon KR (2014) Risk to pollinators from the use of chlorpyrifos in the United States. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 231:219–265Google Scholar
  12. Dai P, Jack CJ, Mortensen AN, Ellis JD (2017) Acute toxicity of five pesticides to Apis mellifera larvae reared in vitro. Pest Manag Sci 73(11):2282–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Decourtye A, Henry M, Desneux N (2013) Environment: overhaul pesticide testing on bees. Nature 497(7448):188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM (2007) The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52:81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duke SO, Cantrell CL, Meepagala KM, Wedge DE, Tabanca N, Schrader KK (2010) Natural toxins for use in pest management. Toxins 2:1943–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farooqi MA, Hasan M, Arshad M (2016) Toxicity of three commonly used nicotinoids and spinosad to Apis melliferaL. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) using surface residual bioassays. Pakistan J Zool 48(6):1983–1987Google Scholar
  17. Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Winfree R, Aizen MA, Bommarco RSA, Cunningham K, Carvalheiro L, Harder LD, Afik MO (2013) Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339:1608–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonza’lez-Varo JP, Biesmeijer JC, Bommarco R, Potts SG, Schweiger O (2013) Combined effects of global change pressures on animal-mediated pollination. Trends Ecol Evol 28:524–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hassona NM, Kordy AM (2015) Relationship between toxicity of certain pesticides to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidea) foragers and their Haemolymph amino acids. Middle East J Appl Sci 5(1):19–25Google Scholar
  20. Holmstrup M, Bindesbøl AM, Oostingh GJ, Duschl A, Scheil V (2010) Interactions between effects of environmental chemicals and natural stressors: a review. Sci Total Environ 408:3746–3762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koskor E, Muljar R, Drenkhan K, Karise R, Bender A, Viik E, Luik A, Mänd M (2009) The chronic effect of the botanical insecticide neem EC on the pollen forage of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris L. Agron Res 7:341–346Google Scholar
  22. Li Z, Li M, Huang J, Su S (2017) Effects of sublethal concentrations of chlorpyrifos on olfactory learning and memory performances in two bee species, Apis mellifera and Apis cerana. Sociobiology 64(2):174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miles M, Mayes M, Dutton R (2002) The effects of spinosad, a naturally derived insect control agent, to the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Meded Rijksuniv Gent Fak Landbouwkd Toegep Biol Wet 67(3):611–616Google Scholar
  24. Pashte VV, Patil CS (2018) Toxicity and poisoning symptoms of selected insecticides to honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Arch Biol Sci 70(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson HM (2003) Behavioural effects of pesticides in bees : their potential for use in risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 12:317–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Villa S, Vighi M, Bolchi FA, Serini G (2000) Risk assessment for honey bees from pesticide exposed pollen. Ecotoxicology 9:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Winston ML (1987) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 281ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Zoclanclounon DG, Paraiso AA, Boulga J, Akogbeto F, Paraiso G, Yeyi C (2016) Toxicity to honey bees Apis mellifera Adansonii of three insecticides used in cotton cultivation in Benin. J Entomol 13(5):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pesticides Department, Faculty of AgricultureMenoufia UniversityShibin El KomEgypt

Personalised recommendations