Residue dynamics of a contact and a systemic fungicide in pollen, nectar, and other plant matrices of courgette (Cucurbita pepo L.).

Pollen and nectar can be contaminated with a range of pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. Since these matrices are important food sources for pollinators and other beneficial insects, their contamination can represent a key route of exposure. However, limited knowledge exists with respect to pesticide residue levels and their dynamics in these matrices for many crops and active ingredients (AIs). We used controlled glasshouse studies to investigate the residue dynamics of a systemic (cyprodinil) and a contact (fludioxonil) fungicide in the floral matrices and other plant parts of courgette/zucchini (Cucurbita pepo L.). We aimed to better understand the processes behind residue accumulation and decline in pollen and nectar. Each AI was applied to plants, either by spraying whole plants or by targeted spraying onto leaves only. Samples of pollen, nectar, anthers, flowers, and leaves were taken on the day of application and each subsequent morning for up to 13 days and analysed for residues using LC-MS/MS. Significant differences in residue levels and dynamics were found between AIs and floral matrices. The present study allowed for the identification of potential routes by which residues translocate between tissues and to link those to the physicochemical properties of each AI, which may facilitate the prediction of residue levels in pollen and nectar. Residues of the contact AI declined more quickly than those of the systemic AI in pollen and nectar. Our results further suggest that the risk of oral exposure for pollinators may be considerably reduced by using contact AIs during the green bud stage of plants, but application of systemic compounds could still result in a low, but continuous long-term exposure for pollinators with limited decline.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: We wish to draw attention to the fact that the first author's PhD project was funded by Syngenta Ltd, a company manufacturing and selling plant protection products. Furthermore, some of the co-authors are employed by Syngenta Fiona Gierer reports financial support and equipment, drugs, or supplies were provided by Syngenta Ltd.
(Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)