Field studies with pesticides and non-target arthropods in orchards

Brown, Kevin C.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5791-3_15

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Large‐scale field trials are the most realistic scenario but are very time‐consuming and labour‐intensive (Brown 1998; Firbank et al . 1999; Sears & Stanley‐Horn 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population‐scale laboratory studies of the effect of transgenic plants on nontarget insects

Schuler¹,

Denholm²,

Jouanin

et al. 2001

Molecular Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of the effects of insect-resistant transgenic plants on beneficial insects have, to date, concentrated mainly on either small-scale "worst case scenario" laboratory experiments or on field trials. We present a laboratory method using large population cages that represent an intermediate experimental scale, allowing the study of ecological and behavioural interactions between transgenic plants, pests and their natural enemies under more controlled conditions than is possible in the field. Previous studies have also concentrated on natural enemies of lepidopteran and coleopteran target pests. However, natural enemies of other pests, which are not controlled by the transgenic plants, are also potentially exposed to the transgene product when feeding on hosts. The reduction in the use of insecticides on transgenic crops could lead to increasing problems with such nontarget pests, normally controlled by sprays, especially if there are any negative effects of the transgenic plant on their natural enemies. This study tested two lines of insect-resistant transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) for side-effects on the hymenopteran parasitoid Diaeretiella rapae and its aphid host, Myzus persicae. One transgenic line expressed the delta-endotoxin Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and a second expressed the proteinase inhibitor oryzacystatin I (OC-I) from rice. These transgenic plant lines were developed to provide resistance to lepidopteran and coleopteran pests, respectively. No detrimental effects of the transgenic oilseed rape lines on the ability of the parasitoid to control aphid populations were observed. Adult parasitoid emergence and sex ratio were also not consistently altered on the transgenic oilseed rape lines compared with the wild-type lines.

show abstract

“…Large‐scale field trials are the most realistic scenario but are very time‐consuming and labour‐intensive (Brown 1998; Firbank et al . 1999; Sears & Stanley‐Horn 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population‐scale laboratory studies of the effect of transgenic plants on nontarget insects

Schuler¹,

Denholm²,

Jouanin

et al. 2001

Molecular Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The design of field experiments for testing insecticides such as IGR has been described as a balance between 'replication versus plot size' (Brown 1989). Although replication is required for inferential statistics to be used and to give confidence in attributing any observed differences to the applied treatments, the relatively subtle effects which IGR may have on non-target arthropods demand that plot size needs to be relatively large if interplot interference is to be avoided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field evaluation of the effects of the insect growth regulator tebufenozide on entomophagous arthropods and pests of apples

Gurr

Thwaite

Nicol

1999

Australian Journal of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organophosphate insecticides are very widely used in commercial apple production to control fruit‐attacking pests but their broad‐spectrum activity constrains biological control of other pests. Compounds with narrow‐spectrum activity are therefore desirable. The insect growth regulator (IGR) tebufenozide was compared with another IGR, fenoxycarb, and the organophosphate, azinphos‐methyl, in a replicated field trial in the 1994/1995 apple‐production season. Vacuum sampling of the tree foliage on five occasions during the growing season showed significantly lower populations of various natural enemies (spiders, lacewings and the specialist mite predator Stethorus spp. adults and larvae) in the azinphos‐methyl treatment than in either of the two IGR treatments. The two‐spotted mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch) was most numerous in the azinphos‐methyl treatment. In 1995/1996, the entire trial area was placed under a tebufenozide treatment program to determine the extent to which natural enemy populations would recover when broad‐spectrum insecticide (azinphos‐methyl) use was halted. Populations of polyphagous natural enemies assumed levels broadly equivalent to those observed under IGR treatments the previous year. Numbers of Stethorus spp. were lower than in the 1994/1995 season, possibly because T. urticae (prey) populations were much reduced from the previous season’s densities. All three insecticide treatments were equally effective in controlling the lepidopteran pests, codling moth (Cydia pomonella (L.)), lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)) and early season caterpillars (predominantly Helicoverpa punctigera (Wallengren)). Results indicate that tebufenozide provides good control of lepidopteran pests, while allowing the rapid build‐up of natural enemies which contribute to control of other pests.

show abstract

“…Effects seen in the large plot may be difficult to interpret with any statistical certainty Brown, 1998 relationship between lethality and application rate in the T. pyri GPLT for the substance being considered. to the GPLT LR 50 measurement.…”

Section: Jansen 2000mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non‐target arthropods

Ockleford¹

2015

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Food Safety Authority, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science to support the development of a risk assessment scheme of plant protection products for non-target arthropods. The current risk assessment scheme is reviewed, taking into consideration recent workshops and progress in science. Proposals are made for specific protection goals which aim to protect important ecosystem services such as food web support, pest control and biodiversity. In order to address recovery and source-sink population dynamics, conducting a landscape-level risk assessment is suggested. A new risk assessment scheme is suggested which integrates modelling approaches. The main exposure routes for non-target arthropods are identified and proposals are made on how to integrate them in the risk assessment. The appropriateness of the currently used vegetation distribution factor was investigated. It is proposed that new tests be included in order to address exposure via oral uptake of residues and uncertainties related to differences in species sensitivity. As the assessment of effects on biodiversity is not explicitly addressed under the existing guidance documents, appropriate risk assessment methodology needs to be developed. As such, expertise was needed in the different areas of terrestrial ecotoxicology, including non-target arthropods (NTAs). This scientific opinion has been written as a precursor to the guidance document on NTAs.The ESCORT 1 and ESCORT 2 workshops form the basis of current risk assessment methodology, which is focused on beneficial arthropods. In view of the above-mentioned EFSA mandate, the working group of the PPR panel reviewed the current risk assessment, identified NTA key drivers that sustain important ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes and developed specific protection goal options for in-field and off-field areas. A new risk assessment framework was suggested which integrates landscape-level assessments. As key drivers also include species with population ranges larger than the scale of a single field or off-field area, the working group identified the need to additionally study the impact of PPPs on NTAs at landscape level. The working group developed proposals for exposure assessment and testing of effects as well as a method to calibrate the lower tier risk assessments.The specific protection goals are closely linked to the temporal and spatial boundaries in the context of risk assessment. These boundaries relate to the protection goal (i.e. where is the community of interest?), the life history, behaviour and distribution of the identified key drivers and the route and distance covered by the emission coming from the in-field. It is necessary to make a distinction between the area designated for cultivation (= in-field) and the area surrounding a field (= off-field).The off-field can be either (semi-)natural habitat or simple structures (fence or a bare strip of land). In most cases, the off-fie...

show abstract

Field studies with pesticides and non-target arthropods in orchards

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Population‐scale laboratory studies of the effect of transgenic plants on nontarget insects

Population‐scale laboratory studies of the effect of transgenic plants on nontarget insects

Field evaluation of the effects of the insect growth regulator tebufenozide on entomophagous arthropods and pests of apples

Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non‐target arthropods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About