Abstract
Systemic neonicotinoid insecticides used in urban arboriculture could pose a risk to bees and other pollinators foraging on treated plants. We measured uptake and dissipation of soil-applied imidacloprid and dinotefuran in nectar and leaves of 2 woody plant species, a broadleaf evergreen tree (Ilex × attenuata) and a deciduous shrub (Clethra alnifolia), to assess concentrations to which pollinators and pests might be exposed in landscape settings. Three application timings, autumn (postbloom), spring (prebloom), and summer (early postbloom), were evaluated to see if taking advantage of differences in the neonicotinoids’ systemic mobility and persistence might enable pest control while minimizing transference into nectar. Nectar and tissue samples were collected from in-ground plants and analyzed for residues by high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC–MS/MS) in 2 successive years. Concentrations found in nectar following autumn or spring applications ranged from 166 to 515 ng/g for imidacloprid and from 70 to 1235 ng/gg for dinotefuran, depending on plant and timing. These residues exceed concentrations shown to adversely affect individual- and colony-level traits of bees. Summer application mitigated concentrations of imidacloprid (8–31 ng/g), but not dinotefuran (235–1191 ng/g), in nectar. Our data suggest that dinotefuran may be more persistent than is generally believed. Implications for integrated pest and pollinator management in urban landscapes are discussed. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:860–870.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 860-870 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry |
Volume | 37 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Mar 2018 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2017 SETAC
Funding
Acknowledgment—We are grateful to T. Chen and B. Kowalsky (Valent U.S.A.) for assistance with residue analyses, J. Chamberlin (Valent U.S.A.) for advice on treatment protocols, and A. Baker, T.D. McNamara, D. Miller, C. Redmond, and A. Saeed for assisting with field work and nectar extractions. This research was supported by grants from the Bayer North American Bee Care Center, Valent U.S.A., Horticultural Research Institute, US Department of Agriculture–National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Specialty Crop Research Initiative grant 2016-51181-235399, and the University of Kentucky Nursery Research Endowment Fund. This is paper 17–08–069 of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. We are grateful to T. Chen and B. Kowalsky (Valent U.S.A.) for assistance with residue analyses, J. Chamberlin (Valent U.S.A.) for advice on treatment protocols, and A. Baker, T.D. McNamara, D. Miller, C. Redmond, and A. Saeed for assisting with field work and nectar extractions. This research was supported by grants from the Bayer North American Bee Care Center, Valent U.S.A., Horticultural Research Institute, US Department of Agriculture?National Institute of Food and Agriculture?Specialty Crop Research Initiative grant 2016-51181-235399, and the University of Kentucky Nursery Research Endowment Fund. This is paper 17?08?069 of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Bayer North American Bee Care Center | |
National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Specialty Crop Research Initiative | 2016-51181-235399 |
US Department of Agriculture | |
US Department of Agriculture?National Institute of Food and Agriculture?Specialty Crop Research Initiative | |
University of Kentucky Nursery Research Endowment Fund | |
Alata Horticultural Research Institute | |
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station |
Keywords
- Bee
- Dinotefuran
- Imidacloprid
- Insecticide
- Invertebrate toxicology
- Nectar
- Neonicotinoid
- Pesticide risk assessment
- Urban landscape
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Environmental Chemistry
- Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis