36 results on '"Krupke, C."'
Search Results
2. Competition of Transgenic Volunteer Corn with Soybean and the Effect on Western Corn Rootworm Emergence
- Author
-
Marquardt, P., Krupke, C., and Johnson, W. G.
- Published
- 2012
3. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
- Author
-
Bonmatin, J. M, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, Marzaro, M, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Noome Dominique A, Simon-Delso, N, Tapparo, A, Bonmatin, J. M, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, Marzaro, M, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Noome Dominique A, Simon-Delso, N, and Tapparo, A
- Abstract
Systemic insecticides are applied to plants using a wide variety of methods, ranging from foliar sprays to seed treatments and soil drenches. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. Their popularity is largely due to their high toxicity to invertebrates, the ease and flexibility with which they can be applied, their long persistence, and their systemic nature, which ensures that they spread to all parts of the target crop. However, these properties also increase the probability of environmental contamination and exposure of nontarget organisms. Environmental contamination occurs via a number of routes including dust generated during drilling of dressed seeds, contamination and accumulation in arable soils and soil water, runoff into waterways, and uptake of pesticides by nontarget plants via their roots or dust deposition on leaves. Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured. Overall, there is strong evidence that soils, waterways, and plants in agricultural environments and neighboring areas are contaminated with variable levels of neonicotinoids or fipronil mixtures and their metabolites (soil, parts per billion (ppb)-parts per million (ppm) range; water, parts per trillion (ppt)-ppb range; and plants, ppb-ppm range). This provides multiple routes for chronic (and acute in some cases) exposure of nontarget animals. For example, pollinators are exposed through direct contact with dust during drilling; consumption of pollen, nectar, or guttation drops from seed-treated crops, water, and consumption of contaminated pollen and nectar from wild flowers and trees growing near-treat
- Published
- 2018
4. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites
- Author
-
Simon-Delso, N, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, Madeleine, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, Christy A, Noome Dominique A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P, Whitehorn, P. R, Wiemers, M, Simon-Delso, N, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, Madeleine, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, Christy A, Noome Dominique A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P, Whitehorn, P. R, and Wiemers, M
- Abstract
Since their discovery in the late 1980s, neonicotinoid pesticides have become the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, with large-scale applications ranging from plant protection (crops, vegetables, fruits), veterinary products, and biocides to invertebrate pest control in fish farming. In this review, we address the phenyl-pyrazole fipronil together with neonicotinoids because of similarities in their toxicity, physicochemical profiles, and presence in the environment. Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third of the world insecticide market; the annual world production of the archetype neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was estimated to be ca. 20,000 tonnes active substance in 2010. There were several reasons for the initial success of neonicotinoids and fipronil: (1) there was no known pesticide resistance in target pests, mainly because of their recent development, (2) their physicochemical properties included many advantages over previous generations of insecticides (i.e., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.), and (3) they shared an assumed reduced operator and consumer risk. Due to their systemic nature, they are taken up by the roots or leaves and translocated to all parts of the plant, which, in turn, makes them effectively toxic to herbivorous insects. The toxicity persists for a variable period of time—depending on the plant, its growth stage, and the amount of pesticide applied. A wide variety of applications are available, including the most common prophylactic non-Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) application by seed coating. As a result of their extensive use and physicochemical properties, these substances can be found in all environmental compartments including soil, water, and air. Neonicotinoids and fipronil operate by disrupting neural transmission in the central nervous system of invertebrates. Neonicotinoids mimic the action of neurotransmitters, while fipronil inhibits neuronal receptors. In do
- Published
- 2018
5. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
- Author
-
van der Sluijs, J. P, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bijleveld van Lexmond, Maarten Frank Iman Jacobus, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, M, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, D. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, C. A, Noome D. A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Simon-Delso, N, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Whitehorn, P. R, Wiemers, M, van der Sluijs, J. P, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bijleveld van Lexmond, Maarten Frank Iman Jacobus, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, M, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, D. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, C. A, Noome D. A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Simon-Delso, N, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Whitehorn, P. R, and Wiemers, M
- Published
- 2018
6. A Meta-analysis and Economic Evaluation of Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments and Other Prophylactic Insecticides in Indiana Maize From 2000–2015 With IPM Recommendations
- Author
-
Alford, A M, primary and Krupke, C H, additional
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
- Author
-
Bonmatin, J.-M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D. P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E. A. D., Noome, D. A., Simon-Delso, N., Tapparo, A., Centre de biophysique moléculaire (CBM), Université d'Orléans (UO)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Chimie du CNRS (INC), Department of Chemistry [Cambridge, UK], University of Cambridge [UK] (CAM), Dipartimento di Agronomia Animali Alimenti Risorse Naturali e Ambiente, Universita degli Studi di Padova, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Canadian Forest Service - CFS (CANADA), Purdue University [West Lafayette], Helmholtz Zentrum für Umweltforschung = Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Laboratory of Soil Biology, Université de Neuchâtel (UNINE), Environmental Sciences [Utrecht], Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University [Utrecht]-Utrecht University [Utrecht], and Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche [Padova]
- Subjects
fungi ,food and beverages ,Water ,Dust ,Plant ,Invertebrates ,Nontarget ,Soil ,Vertebrates ,[SDE]Environmental Sciences ,Guttation ,Neonicotinoid ,Pollen ,Fipronil ,Bee - Abstract
International audience; c insecticides are applied to plants using a wide variety of methods, ranging from foliar sprays to seed treatments and soil drenches. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. Their popularity is largely due to their high toxicity to invertebrates, the ease and flexibility with which they can be applied, their long persistence, and their systemic nature, which ensures that they spread to all parts of the target crop. However, these properties also increase the probability of environmental contamination and exposure of nontarget organisms. Environmental contamination occurs via a number of routes including dust generated during drilling of dressed seeds, contamination and accumulation in arable soils and soil water, runoff into waterways, and uptake of pesticides by nontarget plants via their roots or dust deposition on leaves. Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured. Overall, there is strong evidence that soils, waterways, and plants in agricultural environments and neighboring areas are contaminated with variable levels of neonicotinoids or fipronil mixtures and their metabolites (soil, parts per billion (ppb)-parts per million (ppm) range; water, parts per trillion (ppt)-ppb range; and plants, ppb-ppm range). This provides multiple routes for chronic (and acute in some cases) exposure of nontarget animals. For example, pollinators are exposed through direct contact with dust during drilling; consumption of pollen, nectar, or guttation drops from seed-treated crops, water, and consumption of contaminated pollen and nectar from wild flowers and trees growing near-treated crops. Studies of food stores in honeybee colonies from across the globe demonstrate that colonies are routinely and chronically exposed to neonicotinoids, fipronil, and their metabolites (generally in the 1-100 ppb range), mixed with other pesticides some of which are known to act synergistically with neonicotinoids. Other nontarget organisms, particularly those inhabiting soils, aquatic habitats, or herbivorous insects feeding on noncrop plants in farmland, will also inevitably receive exposure, although data are generally lacking for these groups. We summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the environmental fate of these compounds by outlining what is known about the chemical properties of these compounds, and placing these properties in the context of modern agricultural practices.; Les insecticides systémiques sont appliqués à des plantes en utilisant une grande variété de méthodes allant des
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Author
-
van der Sluijs, J.P., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bijleveld van Lexmond, M.F.I.J., Bonmatin, J-M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C.A., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D.W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E.A.D., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Pisa, L., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Tapparo, A., Van Dyck, H., van Praagh, J., Whitehorn, P.R., Wiemers, M., and Environmental Sciences
- Abstract
The side effects of the current global use of pesticides on wildlife, particularly at higher levels of biological organization: populations, communities and ecosystems, are poorly understood (Köhler and Triebskorn 2013). Here, we focus on one of the problematic groups of agrochemicals, the systemic insecticides fipronil and those of the neonicotinoid family. The increasing global reliance on the partly prophylactic use of these persistent and potent neurotoxic systemic insecticides has raised concerns about their impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services provided by a wide range of affected species and environments. The present scale of use, combinedwith the properties of these compounds, has resulted in widespread contamination of agricultural soils, freshwater resources, wetlands, non-target vegetation and estuarine and coastal marine systems, which means that many organisms inhabiting these habitats are being repeatedly and chronically exposed to effective concentrations of these insecticides.
- Published
- 2015
9. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates: Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Author
-
Pisa, L.W., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bonmatin, J.M., Downs, C.A., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., McField, M., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Van der Sluijs, J.P., Van Dyck, H., Wiemers, M., and Environmental Sciences
- Subjects
Neonicotinoids ,Non-target species ,Honeybee ,Earthworms ,Freshwater habitat ,Pesticides ,Fipronil ,Marine habitat ,Invertebrates ,Butterflies - Abstract
We assessed the state of knowledge regarding the effects of large-scale pollution with neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on non-target invertebrate species of terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. A large section of the assessment is dedicated to the state of knowledge on sublethal effects on honeybees (Apis mellifera) because this important pollinator is the most studied non-target invertebrate species. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Lumbricidae (earthworms), Apoidae sensu lato (bumblebees, solitary bees) and the section “other invertebrates” review available studies on the other terrestrial species. The sections on freshwater and marine species are rather short as little is known so far about the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on the diverse invertebrate fauna of these widely exposed habitats.
- Published
- 2015
10. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates: Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Author
-
Environmental Sciences, Pisa, L.W., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bonmatin, J.M., Downs, C.A., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., McField, M., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Van der Sluijs, J.P., Van Dyck, H., Wiemers, M., Environmental Sciences, Pisa, L.W., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bonmatin, J.M., Downs, C.A., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., McField, M., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Van der Sluijs, J.P., Van Dyck, H., and Wiemers, M.
- Published
- 2015
11. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Author
-
Environmental Sciences, van der Sluijs, J.P., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bijleveld van Lexmond, M.F.I.J., Bonmatin, J-M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C.A., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D.W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E.A.D., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Pisa, L., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Tapparo, A., Van Dyck, H., van Praagh, J., Whitehorn, P.R., Wiemers, M., Environmental Sciences, van der Sluijs, J.P., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bijleveld van Lexmond, M.F.I.J., Bonmatin, J-M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C.A., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D.W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E.A.D., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Pisa, L., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Tapparo, A., Van Dyck, H., van Praagh, J., Whitehorn, P.R., and Wiemers, M.
- Published
- 2015
12. Effect of Seed Blends and Soil-Insecticide on Western and Northern Corn Rootworm Emergence from mCry3A + eCry3.1Ab Bt Maize
- Author
-
Frank, D. L., primary, Kurtz, R., additional, Tinsley, N. A., additional, Gassmann, A. J., additional, Meinke, L. J., additional, Moellenbeck, D., additional, Gray, M. E., additional, Bledsoe, L. W., additional, Krupke, C. H., additional, Estes, R. E., additional, Weber, P., additional, and Hibbard, B. E., additional
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
- Author
-
Van der Sluijs, J.P., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bijleveld van Lexmond, M.F.I.J., Bonmatin, J.M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C.A., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D.W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, Matthias, Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E.A.D., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Pisa, L., Settele, Josef, Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Tapparo, A., Van Dyck, H., Van Praagh, J., Whitehorn, P.R., Wiemers, Martin, Van der Sluijs, J.P., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bijleveld van Lexmond, M.F.I.J., Bonmatin, J.M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C.A., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D.W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, Matthias, Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E.A.D., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Pisa, L., Settele, Josef, Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Tapparo, A., Van Dyck, H., Van Praagh, J., Whitehorn, P.R., and Wiemers, Martin
- Abstract
The side effects of the current global use of pesticides on wildlife, particularly at higher levels of biological organization: populations, communities and ecosystems, are poorly understood (Köhler and Triebskorn 2013). Here, we focus on one of the problematic groups of agrochemicals, the systemic insecticides fipronil and those of the neonicotinoid family. The increasing global reliance on the partly prophylactic use of these persistent and potent neurotoxic systemic insecticides has raised concerns about their impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services provided by a wide range of affected species and environments. The present scale of use, combined with the properties of these compounds, has resulted in widespread contamination of agricultural soils, freshwater resources, wetlands, non-target vegetation and estuarine and coastal marine systems, which means that many organisms inhabiting these habitats are being repeatedly and chronically expose ...
- Published
- 2014
14. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates
- Author
-
Pisa, L.W., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bonmatin, J.M., Downs, C.A., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, Matthias, McField, M., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Settele, Josef, Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., van der Sluijs, J., Van Dyck, H., Wiemers, Martin, Pisa, L.W., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bonmatin, J.M., Downs, C.A., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, Matthias, McField, M., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Settele, Josef, Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., van der Sluijs, J., Van Dyck, H., and Wiemers, Martin
- Abstract
We assessed the state of knowledge regarding the effects of large-scale pollution with neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on non-target invertebrate species of terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. A large section of the assessment is dedicated to the state of knowledge on sublethal effects on honeybees (Apis mellifera) because this important pollinator is the most studied non-target invertebrate species. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Lumbricidae (earthworms), Apoidae sensu lato (bumblebees, solitary bees) and the section “other invertebrates” review available studies on the other terrestrial species. The sections on freshwater and marine species are rather short as little is known so far about the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on the diverse invertebrate fauna of these widely exposed habitats. For terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species, the known effects of neonicotinoid pesticides and fipronil are described ranging from organismal toxicology and behavioural effects to population-level effects. For earthworms, freshwater and marine species, the relation of findings to regulatory risk assessment is described. Neonicotinoid insecticides exhibit very high toxicity to a wide range of invertebrates, particularly insects, and field-realistic exposure is likely to result in both lethal and a broad range of important sublethal impacts. There is a major knowledge gap regarding impacts on the grand majority of invertebrates, many of which perform essential roles enabling healthy ecosystem functioning. The data on the few non-target species on which field tests have been performed are limited by major flaws in the outdated test protocols. Despite large knowledge gaps and uncertainties, enough knowledge exists to conclude that existing levels of pollution with neonicotinoids and fipronil resulting from presently authorized uses frequently exceed the lowest observed adverse effect concentrations and are thus likely to have large
- Published
- 2014
15. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
- Author
-
Bonmatin, J.-M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, Matthias, Long, E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E.A.D., Noome, D.A., Simon-Delso, N., Tapparo, A., Bonmatin, J.-M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, Matthias, Long, E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E.A.D., Noome, D.A., Simon-Delso, N., and Tapparo, A.
- Abstract
Systemic insecticides are applied to plants using a wide variety of methods, ranging from foliar sprays to seed treatments and soil drenches. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. Their popularity is largely due to their high toxicity to invertebrates, the ease and flexibility with which they can be applied, their long persistence, and their systemic nature, which ensures that they spread to all parts of the target crop. However, these properties also increase the probability of environmental contamination and exposure of nontarget organisms. Environmental contamination occurs via a number of routes including dust generated during drilling of dressed seeds, contamination and accumulation in arable soils and soil water, runoff into waterways, and uptake of pesticides by nontarget plants via their roots or dust deposition on leaves. Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured. Overall, there is strong evidence that soils, waterways, and plants in agricultural environments and neighboring areas are contaminated with variable levels of neonicotinoids or fipronil mixtures and their metabolites (soil, parts per billion (ppb)-parts per million (ppm) range; water, parts per trillion (ppt)-ppb range; and plants, ppb-ppm range). This provides multiple routes for chronic (and acute in some cases) exposure of nontarget animals. For example, pollinators are exposed through direct contact with dust during drilling; consumption of pollen, nectar, or guttation drops from seed-treated crops, water, and consumption of contaminated pollen and nectar from wild flowers and trees
- Published
- 2014
16. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
- Author
-
van der Sluijs, J. P., primary, Amaral-Rogers, V., additional, Belzunces, L. P., additional, Bijleveld van Lexmond, M. F. I. J., additional, Bonmatin, J-M., additional, Chagnon, M., additional, Downs, C. A., additional, Furlan, L., additional, Gibbons, D. W., additional, Giorio, C., additional, Girolami, V., additional, Goulson, D., additional, Kreutzweiser, D. P., additional, Krupke, C., additional, Liess, M., additional, Long, E., additional, McField, M., additional, Mineau, P., additional, Mitchell, E. A. D., additional, Morrissey, C. A., additional, Noome, D. A., additional, Pisa, L., additional, Settele, J., additional, Simon-Delso, N., additional, Stark, J. D., additional, Tapparo, A., additional, Van Dyck, H., additional, van Praagh, J., additional, Whitehorn, P. R., additional, and Wiemers, M., additional
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites
- Author
-
Simon-Delso, N., primary, Amaral-Rogers, V., additional, Belzunces, L. P., additional, Bonmatin, J. M., additional, Chagnon, M., additional, Downs, C., additional, Furlan, L., additional, Gibbons, D. W., additional, Giorio, C., additional, Girolami, V., additional, Goulson, D., additional, Kreutzweiser, D. P., additional, Krupke, C. H., additional, Liess, M., additional, Long, E., additional, McField, M., additional, Mineau, P., additional, Mitchell, E. A. D., additional, Morrissey, C. A., additional, Noome, D. A., additional, Pisa, L., additional, Settele, J., additional, Stark, J. D., additional, Tapparo, A., additional, Van Dyck, H., additional, Van Praagh, J., additional, Van der Sluijs, J. P., additional, Whitehorn, P. R., additional, and Wiemers, M., additional
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
18. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates
- Author
-
Pisa, L. W., primary, Amaral-Rogers, V., additional, Belzunces, L. P., additional, Bonmatin, J. M., additional, Downs, C. A., additional, Goulson, D., additional, Kreutzweiser, D. P., additional, Krupke, C., additional, Liess, M., additional, McField, M., additional, Morrissey, C. A., additional, Noome, D. A., additional, Settele, J., additional, Simon-Delso, N., additional, Stark, J. D., additional, Van der Sluijs, J. P., additional, Van Dyck, H., additional, and Wiemers, M., additional
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
19. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
- Author
-
Bonmatin, J.-M., primary, Giorio, C., additional, Girolami, V., additional, Goulson, D., additional, Kreutzweiser, D. P., additional, Krupke, C., additional, Liess, M., additional, Long, E., additional, Marzaro, M., additional, Mitchell, E. A. D., additional, Noome, D. A., additional, Simon-Delso, N., additional, and Tapparo, A., additional
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
20. Evaluating Western Corn Rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Emergence and Root Damage in a Seed Mix Refuge
- Author
-
Murphy, A. F., primary, Ginzel, M. D., additional, and Krupke, C. H., additional
- Published
- 2010
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
21. Resistance to Pyrethroid Insecticides in Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Indiana and Illinois
- Author
-
Jacobson, A., primary, Foster, R., additional, Krupke, C., additional, Hutchison, W., additional, Pittendrigh, B., additional, and Weinzierl, R., additional
- Published
- 2009
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
22. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
- Author
-
van der Sluijs, J., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L., Bijleveld van Lexmond, M., Bonmatin, J-M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E., and Morrissey, C.
- Subjects
FIPRONIL ,NEONICOTINOIDS ,BIODIVERSITY ,INSECTICIDES ,ALKALOIDS - Abstract
The article focuses on the systemic insecticide fipronil and those which belong to the neonicotinoid family. The increasing global dependance on the prophylactic use of these potent neurotoxic systemic insecticides has raised concerns about their effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by a wide range of affected species and environments.
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
23. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites.
- Author
-
Simon-Delso, N., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L., Bonmatin, J., Chagnon, M., Downs, C., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E., Morrissey, C., and Noome, D.
- Subjects
NEONICOTINOIDS ,FIPRONIL ,ALKALOIDS ,INSECTICIDES ,METABOLITES - Abstract
Since their discovery in the late 1980s, neonicotinoid pesticides have become the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, with large-scale applications ranging from plant protection (crops, vegetables, fruits), veterinary products, and biocides to invertebrate pest control in fish farming. In this review, we address the phenyl-pyrazole fipronil together with neonicotinoids because of similarities in their toxicity, physicochemical profiles, and presence in the environment. Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third of the world insecticide market; the annual world production of the archetype neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was estimated to be ca. 20,000 tonnes active substance in 2010. There were several reasons for the initial success of neonicotinoids and fipronil: (1) there was no known pesticide resistance in target pests, mainly because of their recent development, (2) their physicochemical properties included many advantages over previous generations of insecticides (i.e., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.), and (3) they shared an assumed reduced operator and consumer risk. Due to their systemic nature, they are taken up by the roots or leaves and translocated to all parts of the plant, which, in turn, makes them effectively toxic to herbivorous insects. The toxicity persists for a variable period of time-depending on the plant, its growth stage, and the amount of pesticide applied. A wide variety of applications are available, including the most common prophylactic non-Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) application by seed coating. As a result of their extensive use and physicochemical properties, these substances can be found in all environmental compartments including soil, water, and air. Neonicotinoids and fipronil operate by disrupting neural transmission in the central nervous system of invertebrates. Neonicotinoids mimic the action of neurotransmitters, while fipronil inhibits neuronal receptors. In doing so, they continuously stimulate neurons leading ultimately to death of target invertebrates. Like virtually all insecticides, they can also have lethal and sublethal impacts on non-target organisms, including insect predators and vertebrates. Furthermore, a range of synergistic effects with other stressors have been documented. Here, we review extensively their metabolic pathways, showing how they form both compound-specific and common metabolites which can themselves be toxic. These may result in prolonged toxicity. Considering their wide commercial expansion, mode of action, the systemic properties in plants, persistence and environmental fate, coupled with limited information about the toxicity profiles of these compounds and their metabolites, neonicotinoids and fipronil may entail significant risks to the environment. A global evaluation of the potential collateral effects of their use is therefore timely. The present paper and subsequent chapters in this review of the global literature explore these risks and show a growing body of evidence that persistent, low concentrations of these insecticides pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
24. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates.
- Author
-
Pisa, L., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L., Bonmatin, J., Downs, C., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D., Krupke, C., Liess, M., McField, M., Morrissey, C., Noome, D., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J., Sluijs, J., Dyck, H., and Wiemers, M.
- Subjects
INVERTEBRATES ,FIPRONIL ,ANIMALS ,INSECTICIDES ,NEONICOTINOIDS - Abstract
We assessed the state of knowledge regarding the effects of large-scale pollution with neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on non-target invertebrate species of terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. A large section of the assessment is dedicated to the state of knowledge on sublethal effects on honeybees ( Apis mellifera) because this important pollinator is the most studied non-target invertebrate species. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Lumbricidae (earthworms), Apoidae sensu lato (bumblebees, solitary bees) and the section 'other invertebrates' review available studies on the other terrestrial species. The sections on freshwater and marine species are rather short as little is known so far about the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on the diverse invertebrate fauna of these widely exposed habitats. For terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species, the known effects of neonicotinoid pesticides and fipronil are described ranging from organismal toxicology and behavioural effects to population-level effects. For earthworms, freshwater and marine species, the relation of findings to regulatory risk assessment is described. Neonicotinoid insecticides exhibit very high toxicity to a wide range of invertebrates, particularly insects, and field-realistic exposure is likely to result in both lethal and a broad range of important sublethal impacts. There is a major knowledge gap regarding impacts on the grand majority of invertebrates, many of which perform essential roles enabling healthy ecosystem functioning. The data on the few non-target species on which field tests have been performed are limited by major flaws in the outdated test protocols. Despite large knowledge gaps and uncertainties, enough knowledge exists to conclude that existing levels of pollution with neonicotinoids and fipronil resulting from presently authorized uses frequently exceed the lowest observed adverse effect concentrations and are thus likely to have large-scale and wide ranging negative biological and ecological impacts on a wide range of non-target invertebrates in terrestrial, aquatic, marine and benthic habitats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
25. Field and Laboratory Responses of Male Codling Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to a Pheromone-Based Attract-and-Kill Strategy
- Author
-
Krupke, C. H., primary, Roitberg, B. D., additional, and Judd, G.J.R., additional
- Published
- 2002
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
26. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites
- Author
-
Simon-Delso, N., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L. P., Bonmatin, J. M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D. W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D. P., Krupke, C. H., Liess, M., Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E. A. D., Morrissey, C. A., Noome, D. A., Pisa, L., Settele, J., Stark, J. D., Tapparo, A., Van Dyck, H., Van Praagh, J., Van Der Sluijs, J. P., Whitehorn, Penelope R., and Wiemers, M.
- Subjects
2. Zero hunger
27. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
- Author
-
Van Der Sluijs, J.P., Amaral-Rogers, V., Belzunces, L.P., Bijleveld Van Lexmond, M. F. I. J., Bonmatin, J.-M., Chagnon, M., Downs, C.A., Furlan, L., Gibbons, D.W., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., McField, M., Mineau, P., Mitchell, E.A.D., Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A., Pisa, L., Settele, J., Simon-Delso, N., Stark, J.D., Tapparo, A., Van Dyck, H., Van Praagh, J., Whitehorn, Penelope R., and Wiemers, M.
- Subjects
13. Climate action ,15. Life on land ,6. Clean water
28. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites
- Author
-
Simon-Delso, N, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, Madeleine, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, Christy A, Noome Dominique A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P, Whitehorn, P. R, Wiemers, M, Simon-Delso, N, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, Madeleine, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, Christy A, Noome Dominique A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P, Whitehorn, P. R, and Wiemers, M
- Abstract
Since their discovery in the late 1980s, neonicotinoid pesticides have become the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, with large-scale applications ranging from plant protection (crops, vegetables, fruits), veterinary products, and biocides to invertebrate pest control in fish farming. In this review, we address the phenyl-pyrazole fipronil together with neonicotinoids because of similarities in their toxicity, physicochemical profiles, and presence in the environment. Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third of the world insecticide market; the annual world production of the archetype neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was estimated to be ca. 20,000 tonnes active substance in 2010. There were several reasons for the initial success of neonicotinoids and fipronil: (1) there was no known pesticide resistance in target pests, mainly because of their recent development, (2) their physicochemical properties included many advantages over previous generations of insecticides (i.e., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.), and (3) they shared an assumed reduced operator and consumer risk. Due to their systemic nature, they are taken up by the roots or leaves and translocated to all parts of the plant, which, in turn, makes them effectively toxic to herbivorous insects. The toxicity persists for a variable period of time—depending on the plant, its growth stage, and the amount of pesticide applied. A wide variety of applications are available, including the most common prophylactic non-Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) application by seed coating. As a result of their extensive use and physicochemical properties, these substances can be found in all environmental compartments including soil, water, and air. Neonicotinoids and fipronil operate by disrupting neural transmission in the central nervous system of invertebrates. Neonicotinoids mimic the action of neurotransmitters, while fipronil inhibits neuronal receptors. In do
29. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
- Author
-
Bonmatin, J. M, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, Marzaro, M, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Noome Dominique A, Simon-Delso, N, Tapparo, A, Bonmatin, J. M, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, David. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, Marzaro, M, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Noome Dominique A, Simon-Delso, N, and Tapparo, A
- Abstract
Systemic insecticides are applied to plants using a wide variety of methods, ranging from foliar sprays to seed treatments and soil drenches. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. Their popularity is largely due to their high toxicity to invertebrates, the ease and flexibility with which they can be applied, their long persistence, and their systemic nature, which ensures that they spread to all parts of the target crop. However, these properties also increase the probability of environmental contamination and exposure of nontarget organisms. Environmental contamination occurs via a number of routes including dust generated during drilling of dressed seeds, contamination and accumulation in arable soils and soil water, runoff into waterways, and uptake of pesticides by nontarget plants via their roots or dust deposition on leaves. Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured. Overall, there is strong evidence that soils, waterways, and plants in agricultural environments and neighboring areas are contaminated with variable levels of neonicotinoids or fipronil mixtures and their metabolites (soil, parts per billion (ppb)-parts per million (ppm) range; water, parts per trillion (ppt)-ppb range; and plants, ppb-ppm range). This provides multiple routes for chronic (and acute in some cases) exposure of nontarget animals. For example, pollinators are exposed through direct contact with dust during drilling; consumption of pollen, nectar, or guttation drops from seed-treated crops, water, and consumption of contaminated pollen and nectar from wild flowers and trees growing near-treat
30. Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
- Author
-
van der Sluijs, J. P, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bijleveld van Lexmond, Maarten Frank Iman Jacobus, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, M, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, D. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, C. A, Noome D. A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Simon-Delso, N, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Whitehorn, P. R, Wiemers, M, van der Sluijs, J. P, Amaral-Rogers, V, Belzunces, L. P, Bijleveld van Lexmond, Maarten Frank Iman Jacobus, Bonmatin, J. M, Chagnon, M, Downs, C. A, Furlan, L, Gibbons, D. W, Giorio, C, Girolami, V, Goulson, D, Kreutzweiser, D. P, Krupke, C, Liess, M, Long, E, McField, M, Mineau, Pierre, Mitchell, Edward A. D, Morrissey, C. A, Noome D. A, Pisa, L, Settele, J, Simon-Delso, N, Stark, J. D, Tapparo, A, Van Dyck, H, van Praagh, J, Whitehorn, P. R, and Wiemers, M
31. Extended Sentinel Monitoring of Helicoverpa zea Resistance to Cry and Vip3Aa Toxins in Bt Sweet Corn: Assessing Changes in Phenotypic and Allele Frequencies of Resistance.
- Author
-
Dively GP, Kuhar TP, Taylor SV, Doughty H, Holmstrom K, Gilrein DO, Nault BA, Ingerson-Mahar J, Huseth A, Reisig D, Fleischer S, Owens D, Tilmon K, Reay-Jones F, Porter P, Smith J, Saguez J, Wells J, Congdon C, Byker H, Jensen B, DiFonzo C, Hutchison WD, Burkness E, Wright R, Crossley M, Darby H, Bilbo T, Seiter N, Krupke C, Abel C, Coates BS, McManus B, Fuller B, Bradshaw J, Peterson JA, Buntin D, Paula-Moraes S, Kesheimer K, Crow W, Gore J, Huang F, Ludwick DC, Raudenbush A, Jimenez S, Carrière Y, Elkner T, and Hamby K
- Abstract
Transgenic corn and cotton that produce Cry and Vip3Aa toxins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are widely planted in the United States to control lepidopteran pests. The sustainability of these Bt crops is threatened because the corn earworm/bollworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), is evolving a resistance to these toxins. Using Bt sweet corn as a sentinel plant to monitor the evolution of resistance, collaborators established 146 trials in twenty-five states and five Canadian provinces during 2020-2022. The study evaluated overall changes in the phenotypic frequency of resistance (the ratio of larval densities in Bt ears relative to densities in non-Bt ears) in H. zea populations and the range of resistance allele frequencies for Cry1Ab and Vip3Aa. The results revealed a widespread resistance to Cry1Ab, Cry2Ab2, and Cry1A.105 Cry toxins, with higher numbers of larvae surviving in Bt ears than in non-Bt ears at many trial locations. Depending on assumptions about the inheritance of resistance, allele frequencies for Cry1Ab ranged from 0.465 (dominant resistance) to 0.995 (recessive resistance). Although Vip3Aa provided high control efficacy against H. zea , the results show a notable increase in ear damage and a number of surviving older larvae, particularly at southern locations. Assuming recessive resistance, the estimated resistance allele frequencies for Vip3Aa ranged from 0.115 in the Gulf states to 0.032 at more northern locations. These findings indicate that better resistance management practices are urgently needed to sustain efficacy the of corn and cotton that produce Vip3Aa.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
32. Measuring rootworm refuge function: Diabrotica virgifera virgifera emergence and mating in seed blend and strip refuges for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize.
- Author
-
Taylor S and Krupke C
- Abstract
Background: Current insect resistance management plans rely on refuges of plants without Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins to provide a gene pool of unexposed insects. Insects from refuges must mate with insects from Bt maize to slow resistance evolution. We used stable isotope labeling to observe Diabrotica virgifera virgifera emergence, dispersal, physical characteristics, and mating in Bt and refuge maize planted in different refuge configurations. Our objective was to assess how refuge type facilitates mating between insects from Bt and refuge plants., Results: Mating between D. v. virgifera beetles from different plant types was more likely in seed blends compared with strip refuges. Adult D. v. virgifera from refuge plants emerged before those from Bt plants. In strip refuges, D. v. virgifera from refuge plants did not disperse far from refuge boundaries. Larval host plant type did not affect adult size. Larger males and females were more likely to mate. Low proportions of D. v. virgifera from refuge plants were found in 5% seed blend refuges., Conclusion: Seed blend refuges can help to facilitate gene flow between D. v. virgifera beetles from Bt and refuge maize, but current approaches do not meaningfully contribute to delaying resistance because numbers of refuge beetles produced are insufficient. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry., (© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.)
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
33. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil.
- Author
-
Bonmatin JM, Giorio C, Girolami V, Goulson D, Kreutzweiser DP, Krupke C, Liess M, Long E, Marzaro M, Mitchell EA, Noome DA, Simon-Delso N, and Tapparo A
- Subjects
- Agriculture, Animals, Insecta drug effects, Insecticides metabolism, Insecticides toxicity, Nicotinic Agonists metabolism, Nicotinic Agonists toxicity, Plants metabolism, Pyrazoles metabolism, Pyrazoles toxicity, Soil chemistry, Soil Pollutants metabolism, Soil Pollutants toxicity, Water Pollutants, Chemical metabolism, Water Pollutants, Chemical toxicity, Insecticides chemistry, Nicotinic Agonists chemistry, Pyrazoles chemistry, Soil Pollutants chemistry, Water Pollutants, Chemical chemistry
- Abstract
Systemic insecticides are applied to plants using a wide variety of methods, ranging from foliar sprays to seed treatments and soil drenches. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. Their popularity is largely due to their high toxicity to invertebrates, the ease and flexibility with which they can be applied, their long persistence, and their systemic nature, which ensures that they spread to all parts of the target crop. However, these properties also increase the probability of environmental contamination and exposure of nontarget organisms. Environmental contamination occurs via a number of routes including dust generated during drilling of dressed seeds, contamination and accumulation in arable soils and soil water, runoff into waterways, and uptake of pesticides by nontarget plants via their roots or dust deposition on leaves. Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured. Overall, there is strong evidence that soils, waterways, and plants in agricultural environments and neighboring areas are contaminated with variable levels of neonicotinoids or fipronil mixtures and their metabolites (soil, parts per billion (ppb)-parts per million (ppm) range; water, parts per trillion (ppt)-ppb range; and plants, ppb-ppm range). This provides multiple routes for chronic (and acute in some cases) exposure of nontarget animals. For example, pollinators are exposed through direct contact with dust during drilling; consumption of pollen, nectar, or guttation drops from seed-treated crops, water, and consumption of contaminated pollen and nectar from wild flowers and trees growing near-treated crops. Studies of food stores in honeybee colonies from across the globe demonstrate that colonies are routinely and chronically exposed to neonicotinoids, fipronil, and their metabolites (generally in the 1-100 ppb range), mixed with other pesticides some of which are known to act synergistically with neonicotinoids. Other nontarget organisms, particularly those inhabiting soils, aquatic habitats, or herbivorous insects feeding on noncrop plants in farmland, will also inevitably receive exposure, although data are generally lacking for these groups. We summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the environmental fate of these compounds by outlining what is known about the chemical properties of these compounds, and placing these properties in the context of modern agricultural practices.
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
34. crw1--A novel maize mutant highly susceptible to foliar damage by the western corn rootworm beetle.
- Author
-
Venkata BP, Lauter N, Li X, Chapple C, Krupke C, Johal G, and Moose S
- Subjects
- Animals, Cell Wall chemistry, Cell Wall metabolism, Cell Wall parasitology, Coleoptera pathogenicity, Coumaric Acids metabolism, Host-Parasite Interactions, Hydroxybenzoates metabolism, Mutation, Plant Cells chemistry, Plant Cells metabolism, Plant Cells parasitology, Plant Diseases immunology, Plant Diseases parasitology, Plant Leaves immunology, Plant Leaves parasitology, Plant Proteins immunology, Zea mays immunology, Zea mays parasitology, Coleoptera physiology, Plant Diseases genetics, Plant Immunity genetics, Plant Leaves genetics, Plant Proteins genetics, Zea mays genetics
- Abstract
Western corn rootworm (WCR), Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), is the most destructive insect pest of corn (Zea mays L.) in the United States. The adult WCR beetles derive their nourishment from multiple sources including corn pollen and silks as well as the pollen of alternate hosts. Conversely, the corn foliage is largely neglected as a food source by WCR beetles, leading to a perception of a passive interaction between the two. We report here a novel recessive mutation of corn that was identified and named after its foliar susceptibility to corn rootworm beetles (crw1). The crw1 mutant under field conditions was exceptionally susceptible to foliar damage by WCR beetles in an age-specific manner. It exhibits pleiotropic defects on cell wall biochemistry, morphology of leaf epidermal cells and lower structural integrity via differential accumulation of cell wall bound phenolic acids. These findings indicate that crw1 is perturbed in a pathway that was not previously ascribed to WCR susceptibility, as well as implying the presence of an active mechanism(s) deterring WCR beetles from devouring corn foliage. The discovery and characterization of this mutant provides a unique opportunity for genetic analysis of interactions between maize and adult WCR beetles and identify new strategies to control the spread and invasion of this destructive pest.
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
35. Does pheromone-based aggregation of codling moth larvae help procure future mates?
- Author
-
Duthie B, Gries G, Gries R, Krupke C, and Derksen S
- Subjects
- Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Biological Evolution, Female, Flight, Animal, Larva physiology, Male, Pupa physiology, Animal Communication, Moths physiology, Sex Attractants physiology, Sexual Behavior, Animal
- Abstract
In field and laboratory bioassay experiments, we show that larvae of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella, cocoon in aggregations. This aggregation behavior of fifth-instar larvae prior to pupation and arrestment of eclosed adult males by mature female pupae seems to allow mating as soon as an adult female ecloses. This synchronous timing is realized because foraging fifth-instar are attracted by cocoon-spinning larvae and prepupae, but not by pupae, and because male pupae develop faster than female pupae. Eclosed males are arrested by sex pheromone that disseminates from female pupae even before adult females eclose. Communication in C. pomonella within and among developmental stages (larva-larva and pupa-adult, respectively) may be a strategy to procure mates. If so, our data add to current knowledge that attraction of mates in insects relies on communication among adults, or pupae and adults.
- Published
- 2003
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
36. Field attraction of the stink bug Euschistus conspersus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) to synthetic pheromone-baited host plants.
- Author
-
Krupke CH, Brunner JF, Doerr MD, and Kahn AD
- Subjects
- Animals, Female, Male, Malus, Decanoates chemistry, Hemiptera, Insect Control methods, Pest Control, Biological methods, Pheromones chemistry
- Abstract
The attraction of the stink bug Euschistus conspersus Uhler to sources of the synthetic pheromone component methyl (2E,4Z)-decadienoate was investigated in a series of field experiments in native vegetation surrounding commercial apple orchards in Washington. In experiments with pheromone lures placed inside two different tube-type traps, stink bugs were attracted to the immediate area around traps in large numbers, but very few were caught in the traps. Pheromone lures attached directly to the host plant mullein, Verbascum thapsus L., demonstrated that these 'baited" plants attracted significantly more E. conspersus than unbaited plants. Spring (reproductive) and summer (reproductively diapausing) E. conspersus adults, both males and females, were attracted to pheromone-baited plants. There was no significant difference in the number of male or female E. conspersus attracted to pheromone-baited traps or plants in any of the experiments, further characterizing methyl (2E,4Z)-decadienoate as an aggregation, and not a sex pheromone. Stink bug aggregations formed within 24-48 h of lure placement on mullein plants and remained constant until the lure was removed after which aggregations declined over 3-4 d to the level of unbaited plants. The implications of these studies for E. conspersus monitoring and management are discussed.
- Published
- 2001
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.