Open access journal: http://periodicos.uefs.br/ojs/index.php/sociobiology ISSN: 0361-6525 DOI: 10.13102/sociobiology.v65i4.3416Sociobiology 65(4): 737-743 (October, 2018) Special Issue Toxicity of Fenpyroximate, Difenoconazole and Mineral Oil on Apis mellifera L. Introduction Insects are the main responsible for sexual reproduction of most species of cataloged angiosperms, increasing genetic variability of plants (Raven et al., 2001; Michener, 2007). In addition, insects are associated to better fruit and seed productivity and development (Kerr et al., 1996; Imperatriz- Fonseca & Nunes-Silva, 2010; Putra et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2015), play an essential role for maintenance and balance of ecosystems. In this context, studies seek to measure the actual value of services to the environment that pollinators have (Lonsdorf et al., 2009; Gallai et al., 2009; Giannini et al., 2015). However, the growth of agriculture and deforestation, driven by the intensification of agricultural practices (Leblois et al., 2016), favors the emergence of pests and diseases, leading farmers to use pesticides to control insect pest populations Abstract Bees of genus Apis are the main crop pollinators; however, the use of pesticides in agriculture may intoxicate them during foraging. In this study, we evaluated the toxic effects caused by difenoconazole (fungicide), fenpyroximate (acaricide) and mineral oil (adjuvant) used alone and associated (pesticide + adjuvant) on workers of Apis mellifera L. Bees were exposed to product doses recommended by manufacturers, orally and in contact on a contaminated surface in a controlled environment. All products presented low lethality, both in isolation and combination (except for difenoconazole via contact), however, they all showed toxic effects. The results showed that combination of pesticides with adjuvant augmented toxic effects. Sociobiology An international journal on social insects DT Leite1, RB Sampaio1, CO Santos1, JN Santos1, ED Chambó2, CAL Carvalho1, GS Sodré1 Article History Edited by Solange Augusto, UFU, Brazil Received 04 May 2018 Initial acceptance 07 July 2018 Final acceptance 05 September 2018 Publication date 11 October 2018 Keywords Synergism, beekeeping, useful insects. Corresponding author Delzuite Teles Leite Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Agrárias Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia Rua Rui Barbosa, 710 - Centro CEP 44380-000, Cruz das Almas-BA, Brasil. E-Mail: delzuiteteles@hotmail.com (Ecobichon, 2001; Genersch, 2010; Coupe et al., 2012), which, in turn, affects both food production and the environment (Schreinemachers & Tipraqsa, 2012; Guedes et al., 2016). Originally, the relationship between plant and pollinator was essentially positive; however, pollinators are suffering from the frequent use of pesticides in floral resources (Blacquière et al., 2012; Fürst et al., 2014; Morais et al., 2018). Bees are some of the main pollinating agents and have become the most affected individuals, due to the contact with contaminated sources that cause behavioral disorders and even death of individuals (Sandrock et al., 2014; Goulson, 2015). Numerous factors can compromise colony development and perpetuate pests, parasites and pathogens (Genersch, 2010). Among them, the use of pesticides affects pests and bee species (Della Lucia et al., 2014; Rondeau et al., 2014). 1 - Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil 2 - Instituto de Natureza e Cultura, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Benjamin Constant, Amazonas, Brazil RESEARCh ARTICLE - BEES DT Leite, RB Sampaio, CO Santos, JN Santos, ED Chambó, CAL Carvalho, GS Sodré – Toxicity of pesticides on Apis mellifera L.738 Studies on acaricide fenpyroximate (Dahlgren et al., 2012; Li- Byarlay et al., 2014) have reported its toxicity on Apis mellifera L. Syromyatnikov et al. (2017) and Kinasih et al. (2017) also described the effects of the fungicide difenoconazole on Bombus terrestris L. and Trigona (Tetragonula) laeviceps Smith. Fenpyroximate is an acaricide belonging to the chemical group of pyrazoles, classified as highly toxic and very dangerous to the environment. Fungicide difenoconazole is a triazole, classified as extremely toxic and environmentally very dangerous. Mineral oil is an aliphatic hydrocarbon indicated to several crops, classified as low toxic and not dangerous to the environment and it can be applied as an adjuvant added to pesticide syrup (MAPA, 2018). Studies have also proven that neurotoxic insecticides affect the immune system of the A. mellifera, favoring the onset of diseases (Brandt et al., 2016) and showing that secondary effects can be as damaging as the lethal ones. However, toxicity caused by secondary effects is more difficult to diagnose, as it does not present immediate lethality and may further promote the spread of the active principle within the colony. In this context, this work aimed to analyze toxicity (on survival and secondary effects) of pesticides (fenpyroximate, difenoconazole and mineral oil) on A. mellifera when exposed to the contaminated surface of Citrus leaves and the ingestion of candi paste, contaminated by these products. Material and Methods Products used and description of bioassays Bioassays were carried out to test the effects of the maximum recommended doses (Table 1) of products for the phytosanitary control in Citrus crops on A. mellifera. For that, the formulated products used were fenpyroximate (50 g/L of the active ingredient in the formulated product), difenoconazole (250 g/L of the active ingredient in the formulated product) and mineral oil (756 g/L of the active ingredient in the formulated product). The products were purchased at a commercial store. Workers of A. mellifera were collected from three colonies kept in Langstroth boxes in an apiary at the Federal University of the Recôncavo da Bahia, Cruz das Almas, Brazil. Plastic cages (30 cm in diameter and 4 cm high) were made for bioassays with holes in the closed caps with voile fabric for air circulation for comfort of the bees and two lateral holes to fit the feeders adapted from centrifuge microtubes (one with water and another with the candi paste). Bees were exposed to the products as follows: a) Exposure through ingestion - Before being exposed to contaminated food, the bees were kept for three hours without feed. For each treatment, the recommended dose was added to 100 mL of honey and confectionery sugar homogenized with a glass stick in a Becker to form the candi paste. Then, the paste was offered to the bees in microtubes inside the cages for 96 h. b) Contact exposure to contaminated surfaces (by pesticides) - leaves of lemon Citrus aurantifolia var. thaiti, collected from a plant without phytosanitary treatment, were immersed for 5 min in the solution with each pesticide, which was diluted in water as described in Table 1 (adapted from Carvalho et al., 2009). Then, the leaves dried at room temperature for about two hours. As a control treatment, the leaves were immersed for 5 min in distilled water. Assessment of toxicity (survival and secondary effects on bees) All treatments with different types of exposure were installed in chamber type B.O.D. at temperature (30 ± 5 ºC) and relative humidity (70 ± 5%) controlled, with absence of light. We evaluated the mortality of each bee at intervals of one, two, three, four, five, six, nine, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 60, 72 and 96 h after the beginning of the treatments (Carvalho et al., 2009).The secondary effects were evaluated by means of bees observation: disorientation, paralysis, prostration, hyperexcitation, impaired motor coordination and agitation, according to Cox and Wilson (1984), and Carvalho et al. (2009). Statistical analysis A completely randomized design was used to measure the survival rate of the bees, with five treatments on different exposure methods (mineral oil, difenoconazole, fenpyroximate, difenoconazole + mineral oil, fenpyroximate Active Principle Class DMR1 Target Organism Chemical group Difenoconazole Fungicide 20 mL/100L Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Triazole Fenpyroximate Acaricide 100 mL/100L Brevipalpus phoenicis Pirazol Mineral oil Adjuvant 2 L/100L Orthezia praelonga Aliphatic hydrocarbons 1in accordance with Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA), Brazil. Table 1. Active principle, class, maximum dosages recommended by the manufacturer (DMR), target organism and chemical group of pesticides used in citrus orchards. Sociobiology 65(4): 737-743 (October, 2018) Special Issue 739 + mineral oil) and with a control composed of distilled water with five repetitions. Each repetition was composed of 10 bees, totaling 50 bees per treatment and 300 bees per experiment, from colonies installed in a box of the Langstroth model. The data were submitted to the survival analysis using the survival package and submitted to statistical analysis in R® software (R Development Core Team, 2016). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to determine the proportion of surviving bees against times after application of pesticides by ingestion, contact with contaminated surface and topical contact. The Log Rank test was used to test the null hypothesis when the Kaplan-Meier curves were identical. Results Survival of bees The survival of bees submitted to ingestion treatments presented significant differences according to the Log Rank test of Cox-Mantel (χ2 = 8.8, gl = 5, p <0.0001), with 80% of survival 96 hours after exposure to the active principle difenoconazole. Bees exposed only to fenpyroximate and difenoconazole + mineral oil had 94% and 92% survival rate, respectively, at 96 h of exposure. The survival of bees exposed to active principles mineral oil + fenpyroximate and only mineral oil were 92% and 84% at 72 and 60 h, respectively. Bees that were not submitted to the active products had a survival rate of 94% (Fig 1). Fig 1. Survival curves plotted from exposure time (hours) via ingestion until death of each bee (Apis mellifera): Difenoconazole + Mineral oil (DFZ+MO); Mineral oil (MO); Control (CONTROL); Difenoconazole (DFZ); Mineral Oil + Fenpyroximate (MO+FPX); Fenpyroximate (FPX); . Curves indicate the median and 95%, respectively. DT Leite, RB Sampaio, CO Santos, JN Santos, ED Chambó, CAL Carvalho, GS Sodré – Toxicity of pesticides on Apis mellifera L.740 The survival curve of the Cox-Mantel Log Rank test showed significant differences in the survival rates between bees that were submitted to different pesticides applied by contact (χ2 = 31.6, gl = 5, p <0.0001). There was mortality of 24% and 28% at 60 h after application of difenoconazole and mineral Oil + fenpyroximate, respectively. At 40 and 96 h, mortality of bees exposed only to fenpyroximate and to mineral oil was 22% and 24%, respectively. The survival rate was lower for bees exposed to difenoconazole + 50% mineral oil at 96 h. The survival rate of control bees was 96% (Fig 2). Secondary effects on bees During the study, behavioral changes of bees were observed in all treatments, except for the control, where bees had the same behavior throughout the evaluation period. Contact with mineral oil after 12 h of exposure to the product left the bees with impaired motor coordination, where the bees were unable to stay in the natural position and remained part of the time with the back to the ground. Regardless of exposure type, difenoconazole showed effects after 15 h of evaluation, when workers of A. mellifera presented behaviors divergent to the control, such as agitation and changes in motor coordination. When difenoconazole was added to mineral oil, changes in motor coordination occurred after five hours of evaluation. For fenpyroximate, bees submitted to the contact with this acaricide had alterations in the motor coordination after 12 h of exposure. Fenpyroximate added with mineral oil left Fig 2. Survival curves plotted from exposure time (hours) via contact until death of each bee (Apis mellifera): Difenoconazole (DFZ); Mineral Oil + Fenpyroximate (MO+FPX); Fenpyroximate (FPX); Difenoconazole + Mineral Oil (DFZ+MO); Mineral Oil (MO); Control (CONTROL). Curves indicate the median and 95%, respectively. Sociobiology 65(4): 737-743 (October, 2018) Special Issue 741 the bees at first agitated and later inactive (they did not show any reactions and remained stopped all the time). Pesticides appeared to have repellent action, since bees exposed to the contaminated food moved away from the food during a certain time. In contrast, bees consumed the food naturally in the control treatment during the evaluations. Discussion The application of difenoconazole, fenpyroximate and mineral oil in isolation had a little effect on bee survival or even in combination to the adjuvant (except difenoconazole via contact). However, secondary effects were evident. The products applied in combination with the adjuvant mineral oil had a faster and more noticeable action, causing agitation, changes in motor coordination, followed by prostration. Adjuvants enhance penetration and fixation to improve efficiency by reducing dispersion (Mullin et al., 2016). However, this combination has adverse physiological effects on non-target organisms, suggesting a negative point (Mesnage et al., 2014; Mullin, 2015). In this sense, Mesnage et al. (2013) reported that mixing pesticides with adjuvants may alter toxicity of pesticides. Generally, adjuvants are considered biologically inert and are not evaluated as agents with toxicological potential for non-target organisms, especially when they are combined to pesticides (Ciarlo et al., 2012; Mesnage et al., 2013). However, Ciarlo et al. (2012) noted that adjuvants affect the olfactory ability of bees, which is essential for foraging. In our study, there was compromise of the search for food by the bees submitted to the treatments with pesticides. In addition, when pesticides were applied in combination, their effects were more pronounced. Secondary effects can cause damage to adult bees, such as disorientation, which could compromise their return to the colony (Ingram et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2016). Furthermore, bees could transport the chemical products to colonies, accumulating pesticides in the food, which suggests poisoning the larvae when fed with these contaminated products (Johnson et al., 2010; Martinello et al., 2017). Difenoconazole was more toxic to bees exposed to contact when associated with the adjuvant. Mineral oil may have augmented the effect of difenoconazole, since this adjuvant acts in the contact action mode (MAPA, 2018), while difenoconazole is a systemic action compound with high residual effect (Andrade Junior & Galbieri, 2014; Balardin, 2015). On the other hand, difenoconazole was classified as little toxic for Trigona (Tetragonula) laeviceps Smith by topical route (Kinasih et al., 2017), suggesting that this fungicide used without addition of adjuvants is considered nontoxic for bee survival. Nevertheless, the authors reported that this fungicide could cause secondary effects. Syromyatnikov et al. (2017) found that difenoconazole affected mitochondrial respiration and consequently reduced energy production in flight muscles of Bombus terrestris L. Fenpyroximate applied in isolation or combination with the adjuvant did not significantly reduce bee survival in any of the contamination media evaluated. Fenpyroximate is an acaricide classified as highly dangerous to the environment and belonging to pyrazole, which is a chemical group of neurotoxic action. However, in our study, high toxicity regarding the survival of A. mellifera was not observed. On the other hand, Dahlgren et al. (2012) compared toxicity of fenpyroximate on workers and queens of A. mellifera, and reported that this acaricide was more toxic to bee workers than to queen. In our research, we also observed that bees exposed only to fenpyroximate showed changes in motor coordination; however, when exposed to fenpyroximate associated with mineral oil, the insects displayed agitation. Li-Byarlay et al. (2014) observed that the fenpyroximate could stimulate aggressiveness in bees of A. mellifera. Bees could be, multiple times, exposed to the same active ingredient or more than one, which may affect the immune system by developing chronic problems, aggravating secondary effects (Whitehorn et al., 2012; Morais et al., 2018). Exposure of bees to pesticides could become even more harmful, since there is the possibility of repeated, simultaneous and synergistic exposure among and between different chemical groups (Luttik et al., 2012). In our study, despite low lethality of difenoconazole, fenpyroximate and mineral oil, except difenoconazole associated with mineral oil via contact, secondary effects were evident mainly when the products were associated with mineral oil. Acknowledgements The authors thank Coordenadoria de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB) for the financial support. References Andrade Junior, E.R. & Galbieri, R. (2014). Eficiência de fungicidas no controle de mancha de ramulária em algodoeiro, na safra 2013/14 no Mato Grosso. Circular técnica n, 12. Retrieved from: http://www.imamt.com.br/system/ anexos/arquivos/260/original/circular_tecnica_edicao12_ bx.pdf?1418381257 Balardin, R. 2015. Fungicidas sistêmicos: benzimidazóis, triazóis e estrobilurinas. https://phytusclub.com/materiais- didaticos/fungicidassistemicos-benzimidazois-triazois-e- estrobilurinas/. (accessed date: 18 July, 2018). Blacquiere, T., Smagghe, G., Van Gestel, C.A. & Mommaerts, V. (2012). Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology, 21: 973-992. doi: 10.1007/s10646-012-0863-x DT Leite, RB Sampaio, CO Santos, JN Santos, ED Chambó, CAL Carvalho, GS Sodré – Toxicity of pesticides on Apis mellifera L.742 Brandt, A., Gorenflo, A., Siede, R., Meixner, M. & Büchler, R. (2016). The neonicotinoids thiacloprid, imidacloprid, and clothianidin affect the immunocompetence of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Journal of Insect Physiology, 86: 40-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2016.01.001 Carvalho, S.M., Carvalho, G.A., Carvalho, C.F., Bueno Filho, J.S.S., & Baptista, A.P.M. (2009). Toxicidade de acaricidas/ inseticidas empregados na citricultura para a abelha africanizada Apis mellifera L., 1758 (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Arquivos do Instituto Biológico, 76:597-606. Retrived from: http://www.biologico.sp.gov.br/uploads/docs/arq/v76_4/ carvalho.pdf Ciarlo, T.J., Mullin, C.A., Frazier, J.L. & Schmehl, D.R. (2012). Learning impairment in honey bees caused by agricultural spray adjuvants. PLoS One, 7: e40848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040848 Coupe, R.H., Barlow, J.R. & Capel, P.D. (2012). Complexity of human and ecosystem interactions in an agricultural landscape. Environmental Development, 4: 88-104. doi: 10. 1016/j.envdev.2012.09.009 Cox, R.L. & Wilson, W.T. (1984) Effects of permethrin on the behavior of individually tagged honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Environmental Entomology, 13: 375-378. Dahlgren, L., Johnson, R.M., Siegfried, B.D., & Ellis, M.D. (2012). Comparative toxicity of acaricides to honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) workers and queens. Journal of Economic Entomology, 105: 1895-1902. doi: 10.1155/2014/179691 Della Lucia, T., Gandra, L.C. & Guedes, R.N. (2014). Managing leaf cutting ants: peculiarities, trends and challenges. Pest Management Science, 70: 14-23. doi: 10.1002/ps.3660 Ecobichon, D.J. (2001). Pesticide use in developing countries. Toxicology, 160: 27-33. doi: 10.1016/S0300- 483X(00)00452-2 Fürst, M.A., McMahon, D.P., Osborne, J.L., Paxton, R.J. & Brown, M.J.F. (2014). Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature, 506: 364-366. doi: 10.1038/nature12977 Gallai, N., Salles, J.M., Settele, J., & Vaissière, B.E. (2009). Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics, 68: 810-821. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014 Giannini, T.C., Cordeiro, G.D., Freitas, B.M, Saraiva, A.M. & Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L. (2015). The dependence of crops for pollinators and the economic value of pollination in Brazil. Journal of Economic Entomology, 108: 849-857. doi: 10.1093/jee/tov093 Genersch, E. (2010). Honey bee pathology: current threats to honey bees and beekeeping. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 87: 87-97. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2573-8 Goulson D. (2015) Neonicotinoids impact bumblebee colony fitness in the field; a reanalysis of the UK’s Food & Environment Research Agency 2012 experiment. PeerJ 3: e854. doi: 10.7717/peerj.854 Guedes, R.N.C., Smagghe, G., Stark, J.D. & Desneux, N. (2016) Pesticide induced stress in arthropod pests for optimized integrated pest management programs. Annual Review of Entomology, 61: 1–20. doi: 10.1146/annurev- ento-010715-023646 Ingram, E.M., Agustin, J., Ellis, M.D., Siegfried, B.D. (2015). Evaluating sub-lethal effects of orchard-applied pyrethroids using video-tracking software to quantify honey bee behaviors. Chemosphere, 135: 272-277. doi: 10.1016/j. chemosphere.2015.04.022 Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L. & Nunes-Silva, P. (2010). As abelhas, os serviços ecossistêmicos e o Código Florestal Brasileiro/ Bees, ecosystem services and the Brazilian Forest Code. Biota Neotropica, 10: 59. doi: 10.1590/S1676-06032010000400008 Johnson, R.M., Ellis, M.D., Mullin, C.A., Frazier, M. (2010). Pesticides and honey bee toxicity–USA. Apidologie, 4: 312- 331. doi: 10.1051/apido/2010018 Kerr, W.E., Carvalho, G.A. & Nascimento, V.A. (1996). Abelha uruçu: biologia, manejo e conservação. Paracatu: Fundação Acangaú. 143 p. Kinasih, I., Nugraha, R.S., Putra, R.E., Permana, A.D., & Rosmiati, M. (2017). Toksisitas beberapa jenis fungisida komersial pada serangga penyerbuk, Trigona (Tetragonula) laeviceps Smith. Jurnal Entomologi Indonesia, 14: 29. doi: 10.5994/jei.14.1.29 Li-Byarlay, H., Rittschof, C.C., Massey, J. H., Pittendrigh, B. R. & Robinson, G. E. (2014). Socially responsive effects of brain oxidative metabolism on aggression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111:12533-12537. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1412306111 Leblois, A., Damette, O. & Wolfersberger, J. (2016). What has Driven Deforestation in Developing Countries Since the 2000s? Evidence from New Remote-Sensing Data. World Development, 92: 82-102. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.012 Lonsdorf, E., Kremen, C., Ricketts, T., Winfree, R., Williams, N. & Greenleaf, S. (2009). Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. Annals of Botany, 103: 1589- 1600. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcp069 Luttik, R., Arnold, G., Boesten, J.J.T.I., Cresswell, J., Hart, A., Pistorius, J. & Thompson, H. (2012). Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). European Food Safety Authority Journal, 10: 2668. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2668 Sociobiology 65(4): 737-743 (October, 2018) Special Issue 743 MAPA. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. (2018). Agrofit: sistema de agrotóxicos fitossanitários. http:// agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_ cons>. (accessed date: 20 July, 2018). Mesnage, R., Bernay, B., & Séralini, G.E. (2013). Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology, 313:122-128. doi: 10.10 16/j.tox.2012.09.006 Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Spiroux de Vendômois, J. & Séralini, G.E. (2014). Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their declared active principles. BioMed research international, 2014:8. doi: 10.1155/2014/179691 Martinello, M., Baratto, C., Manzinello, C., Piva, E., Borin, A., Toson, M., Mutinelli, F. (2017). Spring mortality in honey bees in northeastern Italy: detection of pesticides and viruses in dead honey bees and other matrices. Journal of Apicultural Research, 56: 239-254. doi: 10.1080/00218839.2017.1304878 Michener, C.D. (2007). The Bees of the World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 953p. Morais, C.R., Travençolo, B.A.N., Carvalho, S.M., Beletti, M.E., Santos, V.S.V., Campos, C.F., de Campos Júnior, E.O., Pereira, B.B., Carvalho Naves, M.P., de Rezende, A.A.A. & Spanó, M.A., Vieira, C.U., Bonetti, A.M. (2018). Ecotoxicological effects of the insecticide fipronil in Brazilian native stingless bees Melipona scutellaris (Apidae: Meliponini). Chemosphere, 206: 632-642. doi: 10.1016/j. chemosphere.2018.04.153 Mullin, C.A. (2015). Effects of ‘inactive’ingredients on bees. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 10: 194-200. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2015.05.006 Mullin, C.A., Fine, J.D., Reynolds, R.D. & Frazier, M.T. (2016). Toxicological risks of agrochemical spray adjuvants: organosilicone surfactants may not be safe. Frontiers in Public Health, 4. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00092 Putra, R.E., Permana, A.D. & Kinasih, I. (2014). Application of Asiatic honey bees (Apis cerana) and stingless bees (Trigona laeviceps) as pollinator agents of hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) at local Indonesia farm system. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 17: 86-91. doi: 10.1155/2014/687979 R Development Core Team R (2016). A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (2016). http://www.R-project. org/. (accessed date: 8 february, 2017). Raven, P.H., Evert, R.F. & Eichhorn, S.E. (2001). Biologia Vegetal. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 906p. Rondeau, G., Sánchez-Bayo, F., Tennekes, H.A., Decourtye, A., Ramírez-Romero, R., & Desneux, N. (2014). Delayed and time-cumulative toxicity of imidacloprid in bees, ants and termites. Scientific Reports, 4: 5566. doi: 10.1038/srep05566 Sandrock, C., Tanadini, M., Tanadini, L.G., Fauser-Misslin, A., Potts, S.G. & Neumann, P. (2014). Impact of chronic neonicotinoid exposure on honeybee colony performance and queen supersedure. PLOS one, 9: e103592. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0103592 Schreinemachers, P. & Tipraqsa, P. (2012) Agriculture pesticides and land use intensification in high, middle and low income countries. Food Policy 37:616–626. doi: 10.1016/j. foodpol.2012.06.003 Silva, I.P., Oliveira, F.A.S., Pedroza, H.P., Gadelha, I.C.N., Melo, M.M. & Soto-Blanco, B. (2015). Pesticide exposure of honeybees (Apis mellifera) pollinating melon crops. Apidologie, 46:703-715. doi: 10.1007/s13592-015-0360-3 Silva, M. B., Nocelli, R.C.F., Soares, H.M., Malaspina, O. 2016. Efeitos do imidacloprido sobre o comportamento das abelhas Scaptotrigona postica Latreille, 1807 (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Revista Ciência, Tecnologia & Ambiente, 3: 21-28. Retrived from: http://www.revistacta.ufscar.br/index.php/ revistacta/article/view/21 Syromyatnikov, M.Y., Kokina, A.V., Lopatin, A.V., Starkov, A.A., & Popov, V.N. (2017). Evaluation of the toxicity of fungicides to flight muscle mitochondria of bumblebee (Bombus terrestris L.). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 135: 41-46. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2016.06.007 Whitehorn, P.R., O’connor, S., Wackers, F.L., & Goulson, D. (2012). Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science, 336: 351-2