SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES AND BEES: ARE WE RE-VISITING “SILENT SPRING?”

 

By Raymond A. Cloyd

Professor and Extension Specialist in Horticultural Entomology/Plant Protection

Kansas State University

Department of Entomology

Phone: 785-532-4750

Email: rcloyd@ksu.edu

 

Recently, there have been concerns associated with the potential direct and indirect effects of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides on bees. The neonicotinoid systemic insecticides include imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, clothianidin, and acetamiprid. These active ingredients are present in many products available to both professionals and homeowners. The concern is affiliated with exposure from foliar applications and exposure to pollen and nectar that may be contaminated via applications to the soil or growing medium. These insecticides have a higher selectivity for insects compared to mammals than other insecticides in the chemical classes, organophosphate and carbamate. The mode of action of the neonicotinoids is as agonists at the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of insects. The specific proposed benefits of any systemic insecticide (not just the neonicotinoids) includes 1) plants are generally protected throughout most of the growing season without the need to make repeat applications, 2) minimal issues regarding drift (when applied as a drench or granule) compared to foliar applications of insecticides, and 3) less direct impact on natural enemies and bees.

Despite these benefits, there have been many sound scientific studies conducted, although primarily under laboratory conditions, that have demonstrated both lethal (direct mortality) and sub-lethal (affecting reproduction and/or survival) effects associated with neonicotinoid systemic insecticides on honey bees and bumble bees. However, this entire issue regarding the concern of how neonicotinoid systemic insecticides may directly and indirectly affect bees is related to two factors: one is the Oregon incident that occurred in June 2013 in which a landscaper sprayed 55 blooming European linden trees with dinotefuran (Safari) for control of aphids…so the use of the insecticide was mainly as a contact…and ended-up killing approximately 55,000 bumble bees in a Target parking lot in Wilsonville, OR. However, the label states specifically “This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.” What should have been a great extension/outreach opportunity to educate people on the importance of reading the label was “twisted” into a means to promote the banning of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides. It is difficult to understand why the Oregon Department of Agriculture did not stress the point regarding the off-label use more. In fact, the landscaper was fined a modest $555.00 for killing 55,000 bumble bees and not reading the insecticide label…what is wrong here?

The second instance was related to a 2013 publication [Gardeners Beware: Bee-Toxic Pesticides Found In “Bee-Friendly” Plants Sold At Garden Centers Nationwide] by the Friends of the Earth based on an extremely poorly constructed preliminary study regarding the sampling of nursery plants treated with neonicotinoid systemic insecticides from three locations (CA, Washington, D.C., and MN). Overall, this study demonstrated ‘nothing’ especially since the study failed to quantify the concentration of active ingredient in the pollen and nectar (they simply combined leaves, stems, and flowers). Furthermore, only seven out of thirteen (54 percent) of the plants sampled (tomato, squash, saliva, gaillardia, pumpkin, zinnia, and aster) tested positive for one or more neonicotinoid insecticide. Therefore, no general inferences can be justifiably made on the impact of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides on bees. However, this information was accepted as demonstrating that ornamental plants treated with neonicotinoid systemic insecticides are toxic to bees. So, this represents another instance of misinformation or lack of substantial reliable information.

It is important to remember that the impact of systemic insecticides (non-neonicotinoids) on bees and other pollinators is not new phenomenon. Below are three publications from studies that demonstrated the direct impact of certain systemic insecticides on bees.

 

1) Glynee-Jones, G. D., and W. D. E. Thomas. 1953. Experiments on the possible contamination of honey with schradan. Ann. Appl. Biol. 40: 546-555.

2) Jaycox, E. R. 1964. Effect on honey bees of nectar from systemic insecticide-treated plants. J. Econ. Entomol. 57: 31-35.

3) Lord, K. A., M. A. May, and J. H. Stevenson. 1968. The secretion of the systemic insecticide dimethoate and phorate into nectar. Ann. Appl. Biol. 61: 19-27.

 

One question that needs to be addressed is—will the banning of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides in actuality preserve bees? In all likelihood producers and homeowners are going to use contact insecticides such as carbaryl (Sevin) and pyrethroid-based insecticides as sprays on a frequent basis, which in the long-term will be more detrimental to bees than systemic insecticides. In addition, there could be problems associated with pesticide drift, direct and indirect effects on natural enemies (e.g., parasitoids and predators), issues affiliated with residues on leaves and flowers, and the potential for insecticide resistance due to the selection pressure placed on insect and mite pest populations. 

Presently, the emphasis has been on the neonicotinoid systemic insecticides; however, what about other systemic insecticides such as acephate (Orthene), disulfoton (Di-Syton), and dimethoate (Cygon) that are still commercially available to homeowners although both disulfoton and dimethoate have or are being phased-out. Then what about chlorantraniliprole (Acelepyrn) and spirotetramat (Kontos)? Will these be the next targets?

What professionals and homeowners can do in regards to utilizing pesticides without harming bees is to use selective products (e.g., Dipel) with short residual activity, time applications accordingly when bees are less active such as the early morning or evening, and use plants in landscapes and gardens that are less susceptible to pests.

Below are a number of general comments and questions regarding neonicotinoid systemic insecticides that need to be taken into consideration:

1. Can neonicotinoid systemic insecticides (NSI) be absorbed into plants, and become present in pollen and nectar thus making floral resources toxic to bees?

2. Are NSI present in pollen and nectar at concentrations that cause lethal or sub-lethal effects?

3. Will exposure via pollen and nectar result in lethal, sub-lethal effects, or no effects?

4. Can NSI contaminate or accumulate in weeds and/or wildflowers?

5. Exposure to contaminated pollen and nectar may increase honey bee susceptibility to parasites and pathogens by compromising the immune system.  

6. What about interactions and multiple factors? For example, what about the effect of combination products and interactions with fungicides?

7. What about timing of application? In general, and based on scientific research, residues of the active ingredient may occur at higher levels in pollen and nectar when applications are made before or during bloom.

8. What about the effects of the metabolites, which tend to be more toxic to insects, associated with the NSI?

Some of the points mentioned above have been demonstrated based on scientific research. Furthermore, there are numerous factors that may influence variation in residue levels in pollen and nectar including timing of application, application method, application rate, number of applications (carry-over effect), formulation, water solubility, plant type and flower morphology, plant age and size, soil type and organic matter content, environmental conditions (e.g, light intensity), and bee age and size. This clearly highlights the complexity of the issue.

Also, it should be noted that honey bees can travel four miles from a hive and they typically gather nectar and pollen from a wide-range of flowers (in fact, the primary food source of the European honey bee is clover and alfalfa) during the season thus possibly diluting “contaminated” pollen and nectar by collecting from different flowers.

In conclusion, we need to be aware of the direct and indirect impact of all pesticides (e.g., insecticides, miticides, and fungicides) on bees. Furthermore, it is critical to read the label of any pesticide to determine if there are any effects on bees. We also have to understand that there is no clearly defined “smoking gun” because many factors may be contributing to bee decline globally including parasites such as the varroa mite (Varroa destructor), pathogens (e.g., Nosema cerane), loss of habitat, nutritional deficiencies, habitat fragmentation, intense management strategies (“bee feedlots”), poor beekeeping, and pesticides.

ALTERNATIVES TO NEONICOTINOID-BASED SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES

Prepared By:

Dr. Raymond A. Cloyd

The neonicotinoid-based systemic insecticides are widely-used in greenhouse production systems to suppress populations of insect pests including aphids, whiteflies, and mealybugs. These include imidaclopird (Marathon), thiamethoxam (Flagship), dinotefuran (Safari), and acetamiprid (TriStar). However, due to issues associated with their potential direct and indirect effects on honey bees and bumble bees, there is a movement to ban the use of neonicotinoid-based systemic insecticides, and prohibit the sale of ornamental plants in garden centers and retail chain stores including Home Depot and Lowe’s that have been treated with these materials. As such, greenhouse producers may want consider using alternative insecticides. Ok, then what can greenhouse producers use? Below is a listing of the insect pests in which neonicotinoid-based systemic insecticides are primarily used against (aphids, whiteflies, and mealybugs) and alternative insecticides along with their modes of action so that appropriate rotation programs can be developed.

Aphids

1. Pymetrozine (Endeavor): selective feeding blocker.

2. Spirotetramat (Kontos): lipid biosynthesis inhibitor

3. Tolfenpyrad (Hachi-Hachi): mitochondria electron transport inhibitor

4. Potassium salts of fatty acids (M-Pede): desiccation or membrane disruptor

5. Petroleum oil (Ultra-Pure Oil/SuffOil-X): suffocation or membrane disruptor

6. Clarified hydrophobic extract of neem oil (Triact): suffocation or membrane disruptor

7. Acephate (Orthene): acetylcholine esterase inhibitor

8. Bifenthrin (Attain/Talstar): prolong opening of sodium channels

Whiteflies

1. Pymetrozine (Endeavor): selective feeding blocker

2. Flonicamid (Aria): selective feeding blocker

3. Spiromesifen (Judo): lipid biosynthesis inhibitor

4. Spirotetramat (Kontos): lipid biosynthesis inhibitor

5. Pyriproxyfen (Distance): juvenile hormone mimic

6. Kinoprene (Enstar): juvenile hormone mimic

7. Novaluron (Pedestal): chitin synthesis inhibitor

8. Buprofezin (Talus): chitin synthesis inhibitor

9. Potassium salts of fatty acids (M-Pede): desiccation or membrane disruptor

10. Petroleum oil (Ultra-Pure Oil/SuffOil-X): suffocation or membrane disruptor

11. Clarified hydrophobic extract of neem oil (Triact): suffocation or membrane disruptor

Mealybugs

1. Potassium salts of fatty acids (M-Pede): desiccation or membrane disruptor

2. Petroleum oil (Ultra-Pure Oil/SuffOil-X): suffocation or membrane disruptor

3. Clarified hydrophobic extract of neem oil (Triact): suffocation or membrane disruptor

4. Kinoprene (Enstar): juvenile hormone mimic

5. Buprofezin (Talus): chitin synthesis inhibitor

6. Acephate (Orthene): acetylcholine esterase inhibitor

7. Bifenthrin (Attain/Talstar): prolong opening of sodium channels

 

Raymond A. Cloyd

Professor and Extension Specialist in Horticultural Entomology and Plant Protection

Kansas State University

Department of Entomology

123 Waters Hall

Manhattan, KS 66506

Phone: 785-532-4750

Email: rcloyd@ksu.edu

Watch for broad mite symptoms

SYMPTOMS

Broad mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks), has reared its ugly little head on a sample of English ivy which was examined by Nancy Taylor at the C. Wayne Ellett Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic at Ohio State University.  The grower explained that the plants were not growing and that the youngest leaves had been very stunted for a number of weeks. Nutritional testing had not revealed any problems; bromine being added to the irrigation water was suspected as a toxin but the grower did want the plants evaluated for evidence of a disease or insect problem.

Stunted and distorted new growth on English ivy caused by cyclamen mite

Stunted and distorted new growth on English ivy caused by broad mite
English ivy showing shortened internodes and stunted, curled foliage caused by cyclamen mite injury

English ivy showing shortened internodes and stunted, curled foliage caused by broad mite injury

The symptoms did, indeed, mimic a chemical injury but a very close look at the youngest leaves which were still emerging and expanding from the buds showed numerous eggs, nymphs and adult broad mites. These pests were responsible for the foliar distortion. Broad mites are tiny and very high magnification is required in order to see them, unlike other types of mites such as the more familiar two-spotted spider mite which shows up in greenhouses occasionally.

Broad mite eggs (L) and the mite itself (R) among leaf hairs.

Broad_mite_eggs_pepper

Broad mite eggs on pepper. Adults are below circle. The eggs are characteristic of the broad mite.

The grower reports that effective management practices for broad mite are contributing to the English ivy’s good recovery.

If you suspect a broad mite problem but do not have sufficient magnification to see them, samples can be submitted to the Clinic.  See the Clinic’s web site at http://ppdc.osu.edu.

BIOLOGY

Description: adults are very small,  light brown to light yellow in color, and they are difficult to see. Adult females can lay up to 76 eggs. Males live for 5-9 days, females 8-13 days.

Eggs are very characteristic, they are translucent with little white dots on top (wax-like domes).

Plants affected: English ivy, begonia, cyclamen, new guinea impatiens, African violet, ageratum, azalea, dahlia, gerbera, gloxinia, jasmine, lantana marigold, verbena, zinnia. Other plants include: citrus, tomato and pepper.

MANAGEMENT

One way to manage broad mites is through the use of miticides. The list below includes some products that have been labeled for use against broad mites on ornamentals.

Pylon (chlorfenapyr)

Avid (abamectin)

Sanmite (pyridaben)

Judo (spiromesifen)

Ultra-Fine Oil (horticultural oil)

M-Pede (potassium salts of fatty acids)

Note: Remember to read and follow the recommendations of all product labels before using any product. The listing of a product does not imply endorsement by the authors.

Biological control: the predatory mite Neoseiulus californicus has been reported as a good predator of this mite.

OTHER RESOURCES

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r280400211.html

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r107400311.html

http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/inter/inmine/Mitesb.html

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/O&T/flowers/note28/note28.html

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/content/broad/a.html

http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/broad_mite.htm

Nancy J. Taylor
Program Director
C. Wayne Ellett Plant & Pest Diagnostic Clinic
Ohio State University, 8995 E. Main St., Bldg. 23, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399
614-292-5006 Office / 614-403-1640 Mobile / 614-466-9754 Fax
taylor.8@osu.edu http://ppdc.osu.edu

Luis Cañas, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Insect Ecology in Controlled Environments
Dept. of Entomology
The Ohio State University
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
1680 Madison Ave.
Wooster, Ohio  44691
Phone: 330-263-3818, Fax: 330-263-3686
Email: canas.4@osu.edu

Whiteflies Flying

Recent stops to greenhouses found a few whiteflies flitting about the poinsettia crops.  Though the numbers aren’t large, a few random flies should spur you into a much more detailed inspection.  In the houses I checked the adults were just an indicator that there were several hotspots with pupae ready to produce even more adults.  Don’t wait, inspect plants throughout the houses, make sure yellow cards are in place and check pesticide rotations and efficacy of application especially in any whitefly hot spots.

Plant Diagnostic Sample Submission App

New to Ohio State University’s C. Wayne Ellett Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic is an app for iPhone or iPad which will allow Clinic clientele to submit images of their plant or insect problem either as stand-alone samples or to supplement a physical sample being sent to the Clinic.

OSU’s Clinic joined with 7 university-based plant diagnostic laboratories in the development of the app which is available for free from the i-Tunes Store and can be found here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sample-submission/id669269520?mt=8 or by scanning the QR code. Anyone may download and use the app which will guide the users with questions customized for various situations including greenhouse and nursery production. The Clinic will charge its  basic exam fee for digital samples submitted through the app (http://ppdc.osu.edu/fees)

While pictures are worth a thousand words they do not always tell the whole story. Some plant disease or insect samples will still require microscopic examination or other types of specialized tests to confirm the diagnosis. If a physical sample is required as a follow-up to a digital sample the Clinic’s basic exam fee will not be charged for that physical sample.

Universities/labs partnering in the development of the Plant Diagnostic Sample Submission app are:
• Alabama Cooperative Extension System
• University of Connecticut Plant Diagnostic Laboratory
• University of Illinois Extension
• University of Kentucky Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (County ANR/HORT Agents only)
• Michigan State University Diagnostic Services Laboratory
• University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Plant Diagnostic Lab (UNHCE Field & State Specialists only)
• Ohio State University C. Wayne Ellett Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic
• Purdue University Plant and Pest Diagnostic Laboratory

samplesubqrcode