11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Target and non-target impact of systemic insecticides on a polyphagous aphid pest and its parasitoid

      , , ,
      Chemosphere
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods.

          Traditionally, measurement of the acute toxicity of pesticides to beneficial arthropods has relied largely on the determination of an acute median lethal dose or concentration. However, the estimated lethal dose during acute toxicity tests may only be a partial measure of the deleterious effects. In addition to direct mortality induced by pesticides, their sublethal effects on arthropod physiology and behavior must be considered for a complete analysis of their impact. An increasing number of studies and methods related to the identification and characterization of these effects have been published in the past 15 years. Review of sublethal effects reported in published literature, taking into account recent data, has revealed new insights into the sublethal effects of pesticides including effects on learning performance, behavior, and neurophysiology. We characterize the different types of sublethal effects on beneficial arthropods, focusing mainly on honey bees and natural enemies, and we describe the methods used in these studies. Finally, we discuss the potential for developing experimental approaches that take into account these sublethal effects in integrated pest management and the possibility of integrating their evaluation in pesticide registration procedures.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites

            Since their discovery in the late 1980s, neonicotinoid pesticides have become the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, with large-scale applications ranging from plant protection (crops, vegetables, fruits), veterinary products, and biocides to invertebrate pest control in fish farming. In this review, we address the phenyl-pyrazole fipronil together with neonicotinoids because of similarities in their toxicity, physicochemical profiles, and presence in the environment. Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third of the world insecticide market; the annual world production of the archetype neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was estimated to be ca. 20,000 tonnes active substance in 2010. There were several reasons for the initial success of neonicotinoids and fipronil: (1) there was no known pesticide resistance in target pests, mainly because of their recent development, (2) their physicochemical properties included many advantages over previous generations of insecticides (i.e., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.), and (3) they shared an assumed reduced operator and consumer risk. Due to their systemic nature, they are taken up by the roots or leaves and translocated to all parts of the plant, which, in turn, makes them effectively toxic to herbivorous insects. The toxicity persists for a variable period of time—depending on the plant, its growth stage, and the amount of pesticide applied. A wide variety of applications are available, including the most common prophylactic non-Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) application by seed coating. As a result of their extensive use and physicochemical properties, these substances can be found in all environmental compartments including soil, water, and air. Neonicotinoids and fipronil operate by disrupting neural transmission in the central nervous system of invertebrates. Neonicotinoids mimic the action of neurotransmitters, while fipronil inhibits neuronal receptors. In doing so, they continuously stimulate neurons leading ultimately to death of target invertebrates. Like virtually all insecticides, they can also have lethal and sublethal impacts on non-target organisms, including insect predators and vertebrates. Furthermore, a range of synergistic effects with other stressors have been documented. Here, we review extensively their metabolic pathways, showing how they form both compound-specific and common metabolites which can themselves be toxic. These may result in prolonged toxicity. Considering their wide commercial expansion, mode of action, the systemic properties in plants, persistence and environmental fate, coupled with limited information about the toxicity profiles of these compounds and their metabolites, neonicotinoids and fipronil may entail significant risks to the environment. A global evaluation of the potential collateral effects of their use is therefore timely. The present paper and subsequent chapters in this review of the global literature explore these risks and show a growing body of evidence that persistent, low concentrations of these insecticides pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Invasion biology of spotted wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii): a global perspective and future priorities

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Chemosphere
                Chemosphere
                Elsevier BV
                00456535
                May 2020
                May 2020
                : 247
                : 125728
                Article
                10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125728
                32069706
                17a84cec-0356-49db-be6a-2b76bec9b706
                © 2020

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article