6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      County-level analysis reveals a rapidly shifting landscape of insecticide hazard to honey bees ( Apis mellifera) on US farmland

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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.

          Abstract

          Each year, millions of kilograms of insecticides are applied to crops in the US. While insecticide use supports food, fuel, and fiber production, it can also threaten non-target organisms, a concern underscored by mounting evidence of widespread decline of pollinator populations. Here, we integrate several public datasets to generate county-level annual estimates of total ‘bee toxic load’ (honey bee lethal doses) for insecticides applied in the US between 1997–2012, calculated separately for oral and contact toxicity. To explore the underlying components of the observed changes, we divide bee toxic load into extent (area treated) and intensity (application rate x potency). We show that while contact-based bee toxic load remained relatively steady, oral-based bee toxic load increased roughly 9-fold, with reductions in application rate outweighed by disproportionate increases in potency (toxicity/kg) and extent. This pattern varied markedly by region, with the greatest increase seen in Heartland (121-fold increase), likely driven by use of neonicotinoid seed treatments in corn and soybean. In this “potency paradox”, farmland in the central US has become more hazardous to bees despite lower volumes of insecticides applied, raising concerns about insect conservation and highlighting the importance of integrative approaches to pesticide use monitoring.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Pesticide Residues and Bees – A Risk Assessment

          Bees are essential pollinators of many plants in natural ecosystems and agricultural crops alike. In recent years the decline and disappearance of bee species in the wild and the collapse of honey bee colonies have concerned ecologists and apiculturalists, who search for causes and solutions to this problem. Whilst biological factors such as viral diseases, mite and parasite infections are undoubtedly involved, it is also evident that pesticides applied to agricultural crops have a negative impact on bees. Most risk assessments have focused on direct acute exposure of bees to agrochemicals from spray drift. However, the large number of pesticide residues found in pollen and honey demand a thorough evaluation of all residual compounds so as to identify those of highest risk to bees. Using data from recent residue surveys and toxicity of pesticides to honey and bumble bees, a comprehensive evaluation of risks under current exposure conditions is presented here. Standard risk assessments are complemented with new approaches that take into account time-cumulative effects over time, especially with dietary exposures. Whilst overall risks appear to be low, our analysis indicates that residues of pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides pose the highest risk by contact exposure of bees with contaminated pollen. However, the synergism of ergosterol inhibiting fungicides with those two classes of insecticides results in much higher risks in spite of the low prevalence of their combined residues. Risks by ingestion of contaminated pollen and honey are of some concern for systemic insecticides, particularly imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, chlorpyrifos and the mixtures of cyhalothrin and ergosterol inhibiting fungicides. More attention should be paid to specific residue mixtures that may result in synergistic toxicity to bees.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid: The integrated control concept

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

              A national survey of managed honey bee 2015–2016 annual colony losses in the USA

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                douglasm@dickinson.edu
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                21 January 2020
                21 January 2020
                2020
                : 10
                : 797
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1941 1502, GRID grid.255086.c, Department of Environmental Studies & Environmental Science, , Dickinson College, ; Carlisle, PA 17013 USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2097 4281, GRID grid.29857.31, Department of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, , Pennsylvania State University, ; University Park, 16802 PA USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000000419368657, GRID grid.17635.36, Institute on the Environment, , University of Minnesota, ; St Paul, MN 55108 USA
                Article
                57225
                10.1038/s41598-019-57225-w
                6972851
                31964921
                d6278a51-a518-41f3-be7f-23f0dea65015
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 20 September 2019
                : 10 December 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000001, National Science Foundation;
                Award ID: DBI-1639145
                Award ID: DBI-1639145
                Award ID: DBI-1639145
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009175, Economic Research Service;
                Award ID: 58-30000-5-0037
                Award ID: 58-30000-5-0037
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005825, National Institute of Food and Agriculture;
                Award ID: 2018-67013-27538
                Award ID: 2018-67013-27538
                Award ID: 2018-67013-27538
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100011929, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research;
                Award ID: 549032
                Award ID: 549032
                Award ID: 549032
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Uncategorized
                environmental impact,agroecology
                Uncategorized
                environmental impact, agroecology

                Comments

                Comment on this article