An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part 3: alternatives to systemic insecticides

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.

Abstract

Over-reliance on pesticides for pest control is inflicting serious damage to the environmental services that underpin agricultural productivity. The widespread use of systemic insecticides, neonicotinoids, and the phenylpyrazole fipronil in particular is assessed here in terms of their actual use in pest management, effects on crop yields, and the development of pest resistance to these compounds in many crops after two decades of usage. Resistance can only be overcome in the longterm by implementing methods that are not exclusively based on synthetic pesticides. A diverse range of pest management tactics is already available, all of which can achieve efficient pest control below the economic injury level while maintaining the productivity of the crops. A novel insurance method against crop failure is shown here as an example of alternative methods that can protect farmer’s crops and their livelihoods without having to use insecticides. Finally, some concluding remarks about the need for a new framework for a truly sustainable agriculture that relies mainly on natural ecosystem services instead of chemicals are included; this reinforcing the previous WIA conclusions (van der Sluijs et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:148-154, 2015).

Related collections

Most cited references 233

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

N. Simon-Delso, V. Amaral-Rogers, L P Belzunces … (2014)

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.

0 comments Cited 350 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil

J-M. Bonmatin, C. Giorio, V. Girolami … (2014)

Systemic insecticides are applied to plants using a wide variety of methods, ranging from foliar sprays to seed treatments and soil drenches. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. Their popularity is largely due to their high toxicity to invertebrates, the ease and flexibility with which they can be applied, their long persistence, and their systemic nature, which ensures that they spread to all parts of the target crop. However, these properties also increase the probability of environmental contamination and exposure of nontarget organisms. Environmental contamination occurs via a number of routes including dust generated during drilling of dressed seeds, contamination and accumulation in arable soils and soil water, runoff into waterways, and uptake of pesticides by nontarget plants via their roots or dust deposition on leaves. Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured. Overall, there is strong evidence that soils, waterways, and plants in agricultural environments and neighboring areas are contaminated with variable levels of neonicotinoids or fipronil mixtures and their metabolites (soil, parts per billion (ppb)-parts per million (ppm) range; water, parts per trillion (ppt)-ppb range; and plants, ppb-ppm range). This provides multiple routes for chronic (and acute in some cases) exposure of nontarget animals. For example, pollinators are exposed through direct contact with dust during drilling; consumption of pollen, nectar, or guttation drops from seed-treated crops, water, and consumption of contaminated pollen and nectar from wild flowers and trees growing near-treated crops. Studies of food stores in honeybee colonies from across the globe demonstrate that colonies are routinely and chronically exposed to neonicotinoids, fipronil, and their metabolites (generally in the 1–100 ppb range), mixed with other pesticides some of which are known to act synergistically with neonicotinoids. Other nontarget organisms, particularly those inhabiting soils, aquatic habitats, or herbivorous insects feeding on noncrop plants in farmland, will also inevitably receive exposure, although data are generally lacking for these groups. We summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the environmental fate of these compounds by outlining what is known about the chemical properties of these compounds, and placing these properties in the context of modern agricultural practices.

0 comments Cited 262 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates

L. Pisa, V. Amaral-Rogers, L P Belzunces … (2014)

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.

0 comments Cited 213 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Jean-Marc Bonmatin:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1770-0460

bonmatin@cnrs-orleans.fr

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Environ Sci Pollut Res Int

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Environ Sci Pollut Res Int

Title: Environmental Science and Pollution Research International

Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )

ISSN (Print): 0944-1344

ISSN (Electronic): 1614-7499

Publication date (Electronic): 25 February 2018

Publication date PMC-release: 25 February 2018

Publication date (Print): 2021

Volume: 28

Issue: 10

Pages: 11798-11820

Affiliations

[1 ]Veneto Agricoltura, Legnaro (PD), Italy

[2 ]GRID grid.5608.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 3470, Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, , University of Padova, ; Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy

[3 ]Beekeeping Research and Information Centre, Louvain la Neuve, Belgium

[4 ]GRID grid.1013.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 834X, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, , The University of Sydney, ; 1 Central Avenue, Eveleigh, NSW 2015 Australia

[5 ]GRID grid.434926.e, ISNI 0000 0001 1940 9445, Institut Technique de l’Agriculture Biologique (ITAB), ; 149 Rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris, France

[6 ]Condifesa Veneto, Associazione regionale dei ccnsorzi di difesa del Veneto, Via F.S. Orologio 6, 35129 Padova (PD), Italy

[7 ]Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, 46 Pertuis-du-Sault, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland

[8 ]GRID grid.417870.d, ISNI 0000 0004 0614 8532, Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), ; Rue Charles Sadron, 45071 Orléans, France

Author notes

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Author information

Jean-Marc Bonmatin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1770-0460

Article

Publisher ID: 1052

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-1052-5

PMC ID: 7921064

PubMed ID: 29478160

SO-VID: 85f93475-de06-41c8-b084-2586fae7f9f2

License:

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

History

Date received : 8 August 2017

Date accepted : 13 December 2017

Funding

Funded by: Triodos Foundation (The Netherlands)

Funded by: Act Beyond Trust (Japan)

Funded by: Stichting Triodos Foundation (The Netherlands)

Funded by: M.A.O.C. Gravin van Bylandt Stichting (The Netherlands)

Funded by: Zukunft Stiftung Landwirtschaft (Germany)

Funded by: Hartmut Spaeter Umweltstiftung (Germany)

Funded by: Lune de Miel Foundation (France)

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: General environmental science

Keywords: systemic insecticides,neonicotinoids,fipronil,mutual funds,insurance cover,pest control,resistance,biological control,ipm,review

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: General environmental science

Keywords: systemic insecticides, neonicotinoids, fipronil, mutual funds, insurance cover, pest control, resistance, biological control, ipm, review

An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part 3: alternatives to systemic insecticides

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Entomologia Generalis

Most cited references 233

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

Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil

Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 115

Cited by 16

Most referenced authors 2,021