+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates


      Read this article at

          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.


          We assessed the state of knowledge regarding the effects of large-scale pollution with neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on non-target invertebrate species of terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. A large section of the assessment is dedicated to the state of knowledge on sublethal effects on honeybees ( Apis mellifera) because this important pollinator is the most studied non-target invertebrate species. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Lumbricidae (earthworms), Apoidae sensu lato (bumblebees, solitary bees) and the section “other invertebrates” review available studies on the other terrestrial species. The sections on freshwater and marine species are rather short as little is known so far about the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on the diverse invertebrate fauna of these widely exposed habitats. For terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species, the known effects of neonicotinoid pesticides and fipronil are described ranging from organismal toxicology and behavioural effects to population-level effects. For earthworms, freshwater and marine species, the relation of findings to regulatory risk assessment is described. Neonicotinoid insecticides exhibit very high toxicity to a wide range of invertebrates, particularly insects, and field-realistic exposure is likely to result in both lethal and a broad range of important sublethal impacts. There is a major knowledge gap regarding impacts on the grand majority of invertebrates, many of which perform essential roles enabling healthy ecosystem functioning. The data on the few non-target species on which field tests have been performed are limited by major flaws in the outdated test protocols. Despite large knowledge gaps and uncertainties, enough knowledge exists to conclude that existing levels of pollution with neonicotinoids and fipronil resulting from presently authorized uses frequently exceed the lowest observed adverse effect concentrations and are thus likely to have large-scale and wide ranging negative biological and ecological impacts on a wide range of non-target invertebrates in terrestrial, aquatic, marine and benthic habitats.

          Related collections

          Most cited references515

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

          Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture.

          Many agroecosystems are unfavorable environments for natural enemies due to high levels of disturbance. Habitat management, a form of conservation biological control, is an ecologically based approach aimed at favoring natural enemies and enhancing biological control in agricultural systems. The goal of habitat management is to create a suitable ecological infrastructure within the agricultural landscape to provide resources such as food for adult natural enemies, alternative prey or hosts, and shelter from adverse conditions. These resources must be integrated into the landscape in a way that is spatially and temporally favorable to natural enemies and practical for producers to implement. The rapidly expanding literature on habitat management is reviewed with attention to practices for favoring predators and parasitoids, implementation of habitat management, and the contributions of modeling and ecological theory to this developing area of conservation biological control. The potential to integrate the goals of habitat management for natural enemies and nature conservation is discussed.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health

            Background Recent declines in honey bees for crop pollination threaten fruit, nut, vegetable and seed production in the United States. A broad survey of pesticide residues was conducted on samples from migratory and other beekeepers across 23 states, one Canadian province and several agricultural cropping systems during the 2007–08 growing seasons. Methodology/Principal Findings We have used LC/MS-MS and GC/MS to analyze bees and hive matrices for pesticide residues utilizing a modified QuEChERS method. We have found 121 different pesticides and metabolites within 887 wax, pollen, bee and associated hive samples. Almost 60% of the 259 wax and 350 pollen samples contained at least one systemic pesticide, and over 47% had both in-hive acaricides fluvalinate and coumaphos, and chlorothalonil, a widely-used fungicide. In bee pollen were found chlorothalonil at levels up to 99 ppm and the insecticides aldicarb, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid, fungicides boscalid, captan and myclobutanil, and herbicide pendimethalin at 1 ppm levels. Almost all comb and foundation wax samples (98%) were contaminated with up to 204 and 94 ppm, respectively, of fluvalinate and coumaphos, and lower amounts of amitraz degradates and chlorothalonil, with an average of 6 pesticide detections per sample and a high of 39. There were fewer pesticides found in adults and brood except for those linked with bee kills by permethrin (20 ppm) and fipronil (3.1 ppm). Conclusions/Significance The 98 pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 ppm in bee pollen alone represents a remarkably high level for toxicants in the brood and adult food of this primary pollinator. This represents over half of the maximum individual pesticide incidences ever reported for apiaries. While exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, the effects of these materials in combinations and their direct association with CCD or declining bee health remains to be determined.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland


                Author and article information

                Environ Sci Pollut Res Int
                Environ Sci Pollut Res Int
                Environmental Science and Pollution Research International
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                17 September 2014
                17 September 2014
                : 22
                : 68-102
                [ ]Environmental Sciences, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [ ]Buglife, Bug House, Ham Lane, Orton Waterville, Peterborough, PE2 5UU UK
                [ ]Laboratoire de Toxicologie Environnementale, INRA, UR 406 Abeilles & Environnement, Site Agroparc, 84000 Avignon, France
                [ ]Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, UPR 4301 CNRS, affiliated to Orléans University and to INSERM, 45071 Orléans cedex 02, France
                [ ]Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, P.O. Box 92, Clifford, VA 24533 USA
                [ ]School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Sussex, BN1 9RH UK
                [ ]Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, 1219 Queen Street East, Sault Ste Marie, ON P6A 2E5 Canada
                [ ]Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA
                [ ]Department System-Ecotoxicology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
                [ ]Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative, Smithsonian Institution, Belize City, Belize
                [ ]Department of Biology and School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E2 Canada
                [ ]Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, 46, Pertuis-du-Sault, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland
                [ ]Kijani, Kasungu National Park, Private Bag 151, Lilongwe, Malawi
                [ ]Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
                [ ]German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
                [ ]Beekeeping Research and Information Centre (CARI), Place Croix du Sud 4, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
                [ ]Puyallup Research and Extension Centre, Washington State University, Puyallup, WA 98371 USA
                [ ]Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, Postboks 7805, 5020 Bergen, Norway
                [ ]Behavioural Ecology and Conservation Group, Biodiversity Research Centre, Earth and Life Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Croix du Sud 4-5, bte L7.07.04, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
                Author notes

                Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

                © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
                Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Impact of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

                General environmental science
                pesticides,neonicotinoids,fipronil,non-target species,invertebrates,honeybee,earthworms,butterflies,freshwater habitat,marine habitat


                Comment on this article