This study aimed to develop an approach to evaluate potential effects of plant protection products on honeybee brood with colonies at realistic worst-case exposure rates. The approach comprised 2 stages. In the first stage, honeybee colonies were exposed to a commercial formulation of glyphosate applied to flowering Phacelia tanacetifolia with glyphosate residues quantified in relevant matrices (pollen and nectar) collected by foraging bees on days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 postapplication and glyphosate levels in larvae were measured on days 4 and 7. Glyphosate levels in pollen were approximately 10 times higher than in nectar and glyphosate demonstrated rapid decline in both matrices. Residue data along with foraging rates and food requirements of the colony were then used to set dose rates in the effects study. In the second stage, the toxicity of technical glyphosate to developing honeybee larvae and pupae, and residues in larvae, were then determined by feeding treated sucrose directly to honeybee colonies at dose rates that reflect worst-case exposure scenarios. There were no significant effects from glyphosate observed in brood survival, development, and mean pupal weight. Additionally, there were no biologically significant levels of adult mortality observed in any glyphosate treatment group. Significant effects were observed only in the fenoxycarb toxic reference group and included increased brood mortality and a decline in the numbers of bees and brood. Mean glyphosate residues in larvae were comparable at 4 days after spray application in the exposure study and also following dosing at a level calculated from the mean measured levels in pollen and nectar, showing the applicability and robustness of the approach for dose setting with honeybee brood studies. This study has developed a versatile and predictive approach for use in higher tier honeybee toxicity studies. It can be used to realistically quantify exposure of colonies to pesticides to allow the appropriate dose rates to be determined, based on realistic worst-case residues in pollen and nectar and estimated intake by the colony, as shown by the residue analysis. Previous studies have used the standard methodology developed primarily to identify pesticides with insect-growth disrupting properties of pesticide formulations, which are less reliant on identifying realistic exposure scenarios. However, this adaptation of the method can be used to determine dose–response effects of colony level exposure to pesticides with a wide range of properties. This approach would limit the number of replicated tunnel or field-scale studies that need to be undertaken to assess effects on honeybee brood and may be of particular benefit where residues in pollen and nectar are crop- and/or formulation-specific, such as systemic seed treatments and granular applications. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2014;10:463–470.
Mesotrione is a new callistemone herbicide that inhibits the HPPD enzyme (p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase) and introduces a new naturally selective tool into weed-management programmes for use in maize. Mesotrione provides control of the major broad-leaved weeds, and it can be used in integrated weed-management programmes depending on the grower's preferred weed-control strategy. At post-emergence rates of 150 g AI ha-1 or less, mesotrione provides naturally selective control of key species that may show triazine resistance (TR), e.g. Chenopodium album L, Amaranthus species, Solanum nigrum L, as well as species of weed that show resistance to acetolactase synthase (ALS) inhibitors e.g. Xanthium strumarium L, Amaranthus spp and Sonchus spp. The data presented show that resistant and susceptible biotypes of these species with resistance to triazine herbicides, such as atrazine, simazine, terbutylazine and metribuzin, or ALS-inhibitor herbicides, such as imazethepyr, remain susceptible to mesotrione. These results confirm that there is no cross-resistance in biotypes with target site resistance to triazine or ALS-inhibiting herbicides. It is important that herbicide choice and rotation becomes an integral part of planning weed management, so as to minimise the risks of crop losses from weed competition, build-up of weed seed in the soil and the further development of weed resistance across a range of herbicide modes of action.
19Flower strips are widely recommended as a tool to boost insect pollinators and yield 20 in pollinator-dependent crops. Using UK cider apple orchards (Malus domestica 21Borkhausen) as a model system, we assessed whether flower strips increased 22 increasing the availability of early-flowering plants in orchards. Equally, wild insect 43 richness was highest in areas close to semi-natural habitats. Therefore, whilst flower 44 strips can boost abundance of the existing species pool, only large scale preservation 45 of (semi-) natural habitat will maintain pollinator diversity in apple orchards. 46 47
Cover crops (CC) in vineyards and olive groves provide an alternative to conventional tillage (CT) for land management. Runoff, sediment and nutrient loss from six sites in France, Spain and Portugal were compared over 3–4 yr. In general, runoff loss was not significantly reduced by the CC alternatives: average annual runoff coefficients ranged from 4.9 to 22.8% in CT compared with 1.9–25% in the CC alternatives. However, at two sites, reductions in average annual runoff coefficients were greater for CC: 17.2 and 10.4% in CT, 6.1 and 1.9% in CC. Nutrient loss in runoff followed a similar pattern to runoff, as did pesticide loss on the one site; reductions occurred when runoff losses were significantly reduced by CC. The lack of differences at the other sites is thought to be due to a combination of soil conditions at the surface (compaction and capping) and sub‐surface (low‐permeability horizons close to the surface). In contrast, CC always resulted in reductions in soil erosion loss, plus similar reductions in nutrients and organic matter (OM) associated with sediment. Soil erosion loss ranged from 1.4 to 90 t/ha/yr in CT compared with 0.04–42.7 t/ha/yr in CC. Overall, reductions in runoff and associated nutrient and pesticide loss from vineyards and olives occurred with the introduction of CCs only when soil permeability was sufficiently high to reduce runoff. In contrast, reduction in soil erosion and associated nutrients and OM occurred even when the amount of runoff was not reduced. In the most extreme encountered situations (highly erodible soils in vulnerable landscape positions and subject to highly erosive rainfall), additional conservation measures are needed to prevent unsustainable soil loss.
In response to evidence of insect pollinator declines, organisations in many sectors, including the food and farming industry, are investing in pollinator conservation. They are keen to ensure that their efforts use the best available science. We convened a group of 32 ‘conservation practitioners’ with an active interest in pollinators and 16 insect pollinator scientists. The conservation practitioners include representatives from UK industry (including retail), environmental non-government organisations and nature conservation agencies. We collaboratively developed a long list of 246 knowledge needs relating to conservation of wild insect pollinators in the UK. We refined and selected the most important knowledge needs, through a three-stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each need at a workshop. We present the top 35 knowledge needs as scored by conservation practitioners or scientists. We find general agreement in priorities identified by these two groups. The priority knowledge needs will structure ongoing work to make science accessible to practitioners, and help to guide future science policy and funding. Understanding the economic benefits of crop pollination, basic pollinator ecology and impacts of pesticides on wild pollinators emerge strongly as priorities, as well as a need to monitor floral resources in the landscape
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.