1 / 58

The Effects of Neonicotinoids on Honey and Bumble Bees Vera Krischik, Entomology, UMinnesota

The Effects of Neonicotinoids on Honey and Bumble Bees Vera Krischik, Entomology, UMinnesota. SARE 2009 and LCCMR 2010. Grant proposal components: Research

ave
Télécharger la présentation

The Effects of Neonicotinoids on Honey and Bumble Bees Vera Krischik, Entomology, UMinnesota

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effects of Neonicotinoids on Honey and Bumble Bees Vera Krischik, Entomology, UMinnesota

  2. SARE 2009 and LCCMR 2010 • Grant proposal components: Research • Effects of neonicotinyl insecticides in the foraging environment on behavior and survival of pollinators: honey bees, bumble bees, and beneficial insects. • Determine the best MN plants to provide season- long food for bees and beneficial insects.

  3. SARE 2009 and LCCMR 2010 • Grant proposal components: Outreach • Develop plant lists for MN restorations based on research • Develop pollinator friendly pest management protocols using EPA registered reduced risk insecticides. • Develop publication, websites, and deliver workshops on pollinator conservation and habitat restoration. • Work with Advisory Group on research and outreach components.

  4. Experience with Native Plant Research USGA: Making Room for Native Pollinators. 1998 Before Lake Gervias 1999 After DNR, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed, CUES Xerces Society resources

  5. Why Conserve Pollinators? 1. More than 67% of flowering plants need pollinators (240,000 species). 2. Ecosystem services: pollination produces fruits and seeds. 3. Fruits fed on by birds, such as crabapple, cherry, chokecherry, mountain ash, apple, blueberry, sunflower, all need pollinators. 4. 35% of crops, $18.9 billion in U.S. ($217 billion worldwide) require pollinators. 5. 1/3 of the food we eat needs pollinators.

  6. Native Bees also in Decline Economic value of native pollinators? 1. Hundreds of species of native bee contribute significantly to crop pollination. 2. $3 billion/year leafcutter: Megachile Sweat bee: Halictidae Mason bee: Osmia Bumble bee: Bombus Digger bee: Andrena

  7. Beneficial Insects: Flowers provide food for adults. Larvae kill pests Adults Larvae Adults Larvae

  8. Gaucho (imidacloprid-seed treatment) banned in France from 1999-2008

  9. Neonicotinyl insecticides banned in Germany May 21, 2008 • German Federal Office of Consumer Protection • and Food Safety (BVL) suspended registration of • seed treatment used in canola and corn. • Suspended are: • Antarc (imidacloprid), • Chinook (imidacloprid), • Cruiser (thiamethoxam), • Elado (clothianidin), • Faibel (imidacloprid), • Poncho (clothianidin). • 2010 April/May at Purdue, Indiana, data captured, • Hunt and Krupke

  10. Since 1990, neonicotinoids and pyrethroids replaced organophosphates (OP) • Application: Seed treatment (Gaucho), granular or drench treatment into soil (Merit), soil injection (Merit), trunk injection (ImaJet) • Systemic, from roots throughout plant to nectar and pollen (Merit, Admire, Marathon). • Moves less thru a plant when applied to leaves (Provado)

  11. Case study: neonicotinyl consequences on bees Commonly used neonics are very toxic to bees. • Thiamethoxam (seed treatment) • oral, highly toxic 30 ng/bee • Clothianidin (metabolite thiamethoxam) (seed treatment) • oral, highly toxic 22 ng/bee • Imidacloprid (granular, seed treatment) • oral, highly toxic ng/bee 18 ng/bee • Dinotefuran (granular) • oral, highly toxic ng/bee 75 ng/bee

  12. Case study: neonicotinyl consequences on bees Not as toxic to bees. • Acetamiprid • contact, moderately toxic 7.1 microg/bee • Thiacloprid • oral, slightly toxic 14.6 microg/bee

  13. Movento insecticide (Bayer) license revoked Movento 2-way systemic, which distributes the active ingredient upwards and downwards in the plant. Movento is an important addition to pest management programs in grapes, citrus, vegetables, tree fruits, tree nuts, Christmas trees and hops. Label reads... potentially toxic to honey bee larvae through residues in pollen and nectar, but not to adult honey bees...

  14. Movento insecticide (Bayer) license revoked Dec 23, 2009--- NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council and Xerces Society Research determined that spirotetramat (manufactured by Bayer under the trade names Movento and Ultor) causes increased mortality in bee adults and pupae, massive perturbation of brood development, early brood termination, and decreased larval abundance.

  15. Movento insecticide (Bayer) license revoked Dec 23, 2009--- NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council and Xerces Society, A federal court in New York invalidated EPA’s approval of the pesticide spirotetramat and ordered the agency to reevaluate the chemical in compliance with the law. The court’s order goes into effect on January 15, 2010, and makes future sales of Movento illegal in the US.

  16. Threats to bees: soybean aphid management Organophosphates + pyrethroids, are very toxic to bees. • Dimethoate is highly toxic, LD50 15 ng/bee • Chlorpyrifos is toxic, LD50 70 ng/bee • Methyl parathion is highly toxic, LD50 11 ng/bee • Coumaphos is 180 times less than methyl parathion, with LD50 of 2030 ng/ bee • Esfenvalerate is highly toxic, LD50 15 ng/bee • Cyfluthrin is highly toxic, LD50 37ng/bee • Zeta-cypermethrin is extremely toxic, LD50 2 ng/bee • Lambda cyhalothrin is highly toxic, LD50 38 ng/bee • Permethrin is extremely toxic, LD50 8 ng/bee

  17. New threats to bees: Landscape management of EAB, emerald ash borer Cedarburg, WI Annual Cost To Treat Ash Trees = $70,000 (city of 11,000)

  18. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • Economic and environmental risk from EAB • MN has the second largest population of ash trees • in the US. • Since 2002, EAB killed over 50 million ash trees. • Estimated Ohio will spend as much as 1.3 billion • dollars.

  19. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • EAB life cycle • Native to Asia • 1-to 2 year • Larvae feed under bark • Adults emerge in May • Asian ash defended • with chemicals absent • in NA ash. • Landscape management is removal or insecticides.

  20. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • Three application methods • Passive soil drench • Soil injection • Trunk injection

  21. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • Economic risk and high insecticide use from EAB. • Insecticide use will continue for many years until effectiveness of biocontrol is determined • Milwaukee, WI treated 33,000 trees with 1,300 liters ($475/liter). • Estimates are 1.6 million for insecticide and personnel to treat the trees.

  22. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • Economic risk and high insecticide use from EAB. • St Paul and Minneapolis Park and Rec. Board (MPRB) issue permits for trunk injection on public property. • Minneapolis passed a resolution asking homeowners to replace trees rather than treat on private property. • Long term use of insecticides carries environmental risk. St. Paul before St. Paul after

  23. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • Environmental risk • Movement away from tree of insecticide in water to surface or ground water. • Uptake of insecticides from ash by other plants. • Nontarget effects on nectar/pollen feeding birds and insects • Nontarget effects on woodpeckers feeding on ash.

  24. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • Imidacloprid and dinotefuran used for EAB • management are water soluble and can leach. • NY declared imidacloprid a reduced risk insecticide • on LI due to well contamination. • CA initiated a review of imidacloprid's potential • to move offsite and to harm nontargets. • Both the EPA and MDA are interested in • data that addresses these concerns.

  25. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences • Imidacloprid and emamectin benzoate are toxic to • birds and bees. • Imidacloprid can be used on other trees, • especially linden and maple, which are used by • bees, sapsuckers, and hummingbirds. • Emamectin benzoate is a restricted use • insecticide due to hazards to applicators. • It was previously registered for salmon and for • cole crop. The Proclaim label states it is highly • toxic to bees.

  26. Landscape Management of EAB: Nontarget Consequences Nontarget impacts of insecticide use on trunk feeders • In some trees, woodpeckers • have removed up to 95% of EAB larvae. • (Cappaert et al. 2005b). • Birds are exposed to emamectin • benzoate and imidacloprid when • foraging for EAB on ash trees. downy woodpecker red headed woodpecker

  27. Conservation biocontrol:Soil-applied imidacloprid Is translocated to nectar and reduces survival of beneficials • 1. Duration in nectar of landscape ornamentals compared to Gaucho treated-seed (Rogers and Krischik 2008, in review). • 2. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in poplars in field and containers (Tenczar and Krischik 2007). • 3. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in roses in containers (Gupta and Krischik 2006). • 4. Non-target effects of on beneficials: encyrtid parasitoid (Krischik et al. 2007) green lacewing (Rogers et al. 2007) 3 species of lady beetles, Coleomegilla, Harmonia, Hippodamia(Smith and Krischik 2000; Krischik in MS 2008).

  28. Imidacloprid alters beebehavior 20-100 ppb decrease in foraging (Kirchener 1999) 24 ppb disrupts learning & olfactory conditioning (Decourtye et al. 2004) 6 ppb disruption of feeding (Colin et al. 2004) 6 ppb imidacloprid found in pollen loads of bees in France in 2006 (Chauzat et al. 2006)

  29. Imidacloprid translocation to nectar • Gaucho treated-seed: Imidacloprid in nectar • 1.9 ppb in sunflower nectar (Schmuck et al. 2001) • 0.6-.8 ppb in canola nectar (Scott-Dupree+Spivak 2001) • Imidacloprid soil treatments: Imidacloprid in nectar • 3-10 ppb in purple tansy nectar (Wallner et al. 1999) • 15 ppb (1X) and 27 ppb (2X) buckwheat nectar • (Krischik et al. 2007)

  30. Imidacloprid use in landscapes in USA • Imidacloprid may be implicated in CCD-- in the • foraging environment. • Most research on Gaucho-treated seed. Levels of imidacloprid in nectar may be higher for GH and • landscape plants since plants are • treated at flowering and imidacloprid is reapplied. • Imidacloprid persists in leaves for up to 2 years (Szezepaniec & Raupp 2007; Tenczar and Krischik 2007; Gupta and Krischik 2007) • How long does imidacloprid persist in nectar?

  31. Imidacloprid residue in nectar Residue analysis of Asclepias curassavica, tropical milkweed, flowers after an application of soil-applied imidacloprid (Marathon 1%G).

  32. Imidacloprid residue in nectar • Granular imidacloprid (Marathon 1%G) applied to the soil of A. curassavica plants (C,1X, 2X) • Residue analysis at 3 intervals post application: 21-27d, 33-38d and 59-63d after application. • Reapplied 7mo later: 21d after second application. • Flowers were sent to ALS Labs for determination of imidacloprid, 5-OH imidacloprid and olefin metabolites, each sample was 1.0 g (200 flowers from at least 30 plants).

  33. Imidacloprid residue in nectar

  34. Imidacloprid residue in nectar Imidacloprid (ppb) Days post application

  35. Imidacloprid residue in nectar • Gaucho seed treatments: Imidacloprid in nectar • 1.9 ppb in sunflower nectar (Schmuck et al. 2001) • 0.6-.8 ppb in canola nectar(Scott-Dupree+Spivak 2001) • Imidacloprid soil treatments: Imidacloprid in nectar • 3-10 ppb in purple tansy nectar (Wallner et al. 1999) • 15 ppb (1X) and 27 ppb (2X) buckwheat nectar • (Krischik et al. 2007) • 26 ppb (27d), 12 ppb (38d), 9 ppb (63d), reapplied • 53 ppb (21d) in tropical milkweed

  36. Imidacloprid residue in nectar • Marathon applied to containers in the greenhouse results in higher concentrations of imidacloprid in nectar compared to Gaucho: 15 ppb vs. 1.9 ppb (Schmuck et al. 2001). • Beneficial insects in the foraging environment may be exposed to imidacloprid in nectar from a range of sources. • Other systemic neonicotinyls, such as acetamiprid, dinoteferuan, clothianidin and thiamethoxam are also being used, and may kill beneficials.

  37. Conservation biocontrol:Soil-applied imidacloprid Is translocated to nectar and reduces survival of beneficials • 1.Duration in nectar of landscape ornamentals compared to Gaucho treated-seed (Rogers and Krischik 2008, in review). • 2. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in poplars in field and containers (Tenczar and Krischik 2007). • 3. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in roses in containers (Gupta and Krischik 2006) • 4. Non-target effects of on beneficials: encyrtid parasitoid (Krischik et al. 2007) green lacewing (Rogers et al. 2007) 3 species of lady beetles, Coleomegilla, Harmonia, Hippodamia(Smith and Krischik 2000; Krischik in MS 2008).

  38. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University, Lacy L. Hyche, Auburn University, www.forestryimages.org Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in field grown poplars at 12 mo • Cottonwood leaf beetle, Chrysomela scripta (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) • 4 generations occur in MN, >8 in southern US. • Adults overwinter under bark and leaf litter.

  39. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in field grown poplars at 12 mo

  40. Efficacy and duration of imidacloprid in container grown poplarsat 12 mo

  41. Efficacy and duration of imidacloprid in container grown poplarsat 12 mo

  42. Conservation biocontrol:Soil-applied imidacloprid Is translocated to nectar and reduces survival of beneficials • 1.Duration in nectar of landscape ornamentals compared to Gaucho treated-seed (Rogers and Krischik 2008, in review). • 2. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in poplars in field and containers (Tenczar and Krischik 2007). • 3. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in roses in containers (Gupta and Krischik 2006). • 4. Non-target effects of on beneficials: encyrtid parasitoid (Krischik et al. 2007) green lacewing (Rogers et al. 2007) 3 species of lady beetles, Coleomegilla, Harmonia, Hippodamia(Smith and Krischik 2000; Krischik in MS 2008).

  43. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in container grown rose at 12 mo Japanese beetle adult (Coleoptera: Scarabidae) Adults feed on foliage Grubs feed on grass roots Rose ‘Mr. Lincoln’

  44. Conservation biocontrol:Soil-applied imidacloprid Is translocated to nectar and alters predator and parasitoid behavior and survival • 1.Duration in nectar of landscape ornamentals compared to Gaucho treated-seed (Rogers and Krischik 2008, in review). • 2. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in poplars in field and containers (Tenczar and Krischik 2007). • 3. Efficacy and duration imidacloprid in roses in containers (Gupta and Krischik 2006). • 4. Non-target effects of on beneficials: encyrtid parasitoid (Krischik et al. 2007) green lacewing (Rogers et al. 2007) 3 species of lady beetles, Coleomegilla, Harmonia, Hippodamia(Smith and Krischik 2000; Krischik 2008 in prep.).

  45. Soil-applied imidacloprid alters predator and parasitoid survival and behavior: Coleomegilla maculata, Harmonia axyridis, Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) Anagyruspseudococci(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) Chrysoperal carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)

  46. Soil-applied imidacloprid alters survival and behavior of Coleomegillamaculataby 14 d ns ns ns Walk rate P < 0.01 P < 0.01 P < 0.01 P < 0.01 Flip time P < 0.01 P < 0.01 sunflower dandelion chrysanthemum ns ns Survival Fecundity P < 0.01

  47. Soil-applied imidacloprid alters survival and behavior of Coleomegilla, Harmonia, and Hippodamia

More Related