Effects of imidacloprid on the ecology of sub-tropical freshwater microcosms

Sumon, Kizar Ahmed; Ritika, Afifat Khanam; Peeters, E.T.H.M.; Rashid, Harunur; Bosma, R.H.; Rahman, Md. Shahidur; Fatema, Mst. Kaniz; Brink, Paul J. Van den

doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.102

Cited by 90 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that only two copepod species were identified in our ponds, this result should not be generalised across Copepoda. Copepod biomass declined at doses ≥3 µg/L, in agreement with other mesocosm-based assessments reporting harmful effects at concentrations between 3 and 4 µg/L (Chará-Serna et al, 2019;Schrama et al, 2017;Sumon et al, 2018). A compelling case study led by Yamamuro et al (2019) showed that decadal increases in the use of neonicotinoids caused the collapse of freshwater zooplankton, and in turn, of fisheries yield; notably, the once dominant and most sensitive taxon of the zooplankton community was a copepod, whose biomass decline coincided with the introduction of imidacloprid in 1993.…”

Section: Community Responses To Agrochemicalssupporting

confidence: 89%

Widespread agrochemicals differentially affect zooplankton biomass and community structure

Hébert

Fugère

Beisner

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic environmental change is causing habitat deterioration at unprecedented rates in freshwater ecosystems. Despite increasing more rapidly than other agents of global change, synthetic chemical pollution –including agrochemicals such as pesticides– has received relatively little attention in freshwater biotic assessments. Determining the effects of multiple agrochemicals on complex community and ecosystem properties remains a major challenge, requiring a cross-field integration of ecology and ecotoxicology. Using a large-scale array of experimental ponds, we investigated the response of zooplankton community properties (biomass, composition, diversity metrics) to the individual and joint presence of three widespread agrochemicals: the herbicide glyphosate, the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, and fertilisers. We tracked temporal variation in community biomass and structure (i.e., composition, diversity metrics) along single and combined pesticide gradients (each spanning eight levels), under low (mesotrophic) and high (eutrophic) nutrient-enriched conditions, and quantified (i) agrochemical interactions, (ii) response threshold concentrations, and (iii) community resistance and recovery. We found that major zooplankton groups differed in their sensitivity to pesticides: ≥3 µg/L imidacloprid impaired copepods, rotifers collapsed at glyphosate levels ≥0.3 mg/L, whereas some cladocerans were highly tolerant to pesticide contamination. Glyphosate was the most influential driver of community properties, with biomass and community structure responding rapidly but recovering unequally over time. Zooplankton biomass showed little resistance when first exposed to glyphosate, but rapidly recovered and even increased with glyphosate concentration; in contrast, richness declined in more contaminated ponds but failed to recover. Our results show that the biomass of tolerant taxa compensated for the loss of sensitive species, conferring greater resistance upon subsequent exposure; a rare example of pollution-induced community tolerance in freshwater metazoans. Overall, zooplankton biomass appears to be more resilient to agrochemical pollution than community structure, yet all community properties measured in this study were affected at glyphosate levels below common water quality guidelines in North America.

show abstract

Section: Community Responses To Agrochemicalssupporting

confidence: 89%

Widespread agrochemicals differentially affect zooplankton biomass and community structure

Hébert

Fugère

Beisner

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the federal guidelines set for neonicotinoids in Canada, over 90% of neonicotinoids were detected in over half of the fifteen sites between 2012 and 2014 [54]. Further, in predominately agricultural regions imidacloprid was detected at concentrations up to 11.9 µg/L [57]. Therefore, to better understand the widespread use of neonicotinoids in aquatic ecosystem, the U.S., Netherlands and Sweden carried out surveys regarding the presence of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and acetamiprid in surface water [53,56].…”

Section: Occurrence and Persistence Of Neonicotinoids In Global Surfamentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature Review: Global Neonicotinoid Insecticide Occurrence in Aquatic Environments

Borsuah

Messer

Snow

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neonicotinoids have been the most commonly used insecticides since the early 1990s. Despite their efficacy in improving crop protection and management, these agrochemicals have gained recent attention for their negative impacts on non-target species such as honeybees and aquatic invertebrates. In recent years, neonicotinoids have been detected in rivers and streams across the world. Determining and predicting the exposure potential of neonicotinoids in surface water requires a thorough understanding of their fate and transport mechanisms. Therefore, our objective was to provide a comprehensive review of neonicotinoids with a focus on their fate and transport mechanisms to and within surface waters and their occurrence in waterways throughout the world. A better understanding of fate and transport mechanisms will enable researchers to accurately predict occurrence and persistence of insecticides entering surface waters and potential exposure to non-target organisms in agricultural intensive regions. This review has direct implications on how neonicotinoids are monitored and degraded in aquatic ecosystems. Further, an improved understanding of the fate and transport of neonicotinoids aide natural resource practitioners in the development and implementation of effective best management practices to reduce the potential impact and exposure of neonicotinoids in waterways and aquatic ecosystems.

show abstract

“…Instead of relying principally on synthetic pesticides, IPM uses nonchemical or botanical insecticide measures to suppress pest population increase and a range of curative management tactics with synthetic pesticide use as last resort (Barzman et al 2015). The declining availability of many pesticides due to resistance and deregistration, reflecting increasing awareness of their environmental and human health consequences, has driven changes towards ecologically based practices (Barzman et al 2015;Borel 2017;Chagnon et al 2015;Li et al 2017;Sumon et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural enemy enhancement and botanical insecticide source: a review of dual use companion plants

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive agriculture, which is associated with heavy inputs of synthetic insecticides, has serious ecological impacts, leading to loss of vital ecosystem services including insect-mediated pest suppression. In recent years, efforts have been made towards obtaining safer options to chemical insecticides for sustainable pest management. Habitat manipulation is a part of conservation biological control which aims at providing floral resources, alternative prey and shelter to predators and parasitoids to enhance and sustain natural pest suppression. The use of plant extracts as botanical insecticides is also an important provisioning ecosystem service. Selection of plant species for habitat manipulation has focused mainly on plants with suitable floral qualities to support natural enemies. To increase the benefits, habitat manipulation plants that can provide multiple ecosystem services in addition to floral resources would be an ideal. In this review, we focus on the potential of achieving the dual ecosystem services of bioinsecticidal source plants in addition to the provision of floral resources from selected plant species. Our literature search found 283 plants species from 44 plant families that have been involved in habitat manipulation studies. Fifteen of these plant families have species that have been exploited for their insecticidal properties. Three families, Apiaceae, Asteraceae and Lamiaceae, have the largest number of species that have been used for both habitat manipulation and botanical insecticides. Of the four most popular habitat manipulation plants, alyssum Lobularia maritime (L.) Desv. (Brassicaceae), buck wheat Fagopyrum esculentum Moench (Polygonaceae), coriander Coriandrum sativum L. (Apiaceae) and phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth. (Boraginaceae), buckwheat and coriander have been used for insecticidal purposes whilst no records exist of phacelia and alyssum as botanical insecticide species. There is great potential for identifying plant species that can support natural enemies as well as providing potent plant extracts as botanical insecticides by selecting species from the Apiaceae, Asteraceae and Lamiaceae families.

show abstract

Effects of imidacloprid on the ecology of sub-tropical freshwater microcosms

Cited by 90 publications

References 47 publications

Widespread agrochemicals differentially affect zooplankton biomass and community structure

Widespread agrochemicals differentially affect zooplankton biomass and community structure

Literature Review: Global Neonicotinoid Insecticide Occurrence in Aquatic Environments

Natural enemy enhancement and botanical insecticide source: a review of dual use companion plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About