Efficacy and Nontarget Effects of Glyphosate and Two Organic Herbicides for Invasive Woody Vine Control

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. Carreiro ◽  
Linda C. Fuselier ◽  
Major Waltman
Keyword(s):  
Woody Vine ◽  
Nontarget Effects

Comparison of the Effect of Insecticides on Bumble Bees (Bombus impatiens) and Mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus) by Standard Mosquito Research Methods

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethany L McGregor ◽  
Bryan V Giordano ◽  
Alfred E Runkel ◽  
Herbert N Nigg ◽  
H Lee Nigg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aedes Aegypti ◽  
Culex Quinquefasciatus ◽  
Mosquito Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Bombus Impatiens ◽  
Acute Effects ◽  
Nontarget Effects ◽  
Native North American ◽  
Significant Mortality

Abstract Mosquito control districts in the United States are limited to two main classes of adulticides, pyrethroids and organophosphates, to control mosquitoes. Two adulticides used to control domestic mosquitoes are Fyfanon EW (malathion, organophosphate) and DeltaGard (deltamethrin, pyrethroid). While the effect of these pesticides on European honeybees (Apis mellifera L., Hymenoptera: Apidae) has been investigated, effects on native pollinators need additional research. The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute nontarget effects of these pesticides on Bombus impatiens Cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae), a native North American bumble bee species, and compare these effects to wild and laboratory strains of mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti (L.) and Culex quinquefasciatus Say, Diptera: Culicidae) through field and laboratory assays. Bombus impatiens was found to be resistant to Fyfanon EW (x̅ = 6.7% mortality at 50-µg malathion per bottle) at levels that caused significant mortality to study mosquitoes (86.2 ≥ x̅ ≥ 100% mortality) in laboratory bottle bioassays. Comparatively, B. impatiens demonstrated greater mortality to DeltaGard (93.3%) at 2.5-µg deltamethrin/bottle than any mosquito colony assayed (14.1 ≥ x̅ ≥ 87.0% mortality). Only DeltaGard was tested in field applications. In the field, we observed acute effects of DeltaGard on mosquitoes and B. impatiens at 25- and 75-m distance from a truck-mounted ultra-low volume fogger, although treatment effects were not significant for B. impatiens. Additional wild-caught nontarget mortality to DeltaGard field trials was also evaluated. This study indicated that common mosquito control adulticides do cause nontarget mortality to B. impatiens but that impacts are variable depending on pesticide and further studies are needed.

scholarly journals Nontarget Effects of Transgenic Insecticidal Crops: Implications of Source-Sink Population Dynamics

2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark S. Sisterson ◽  
Yves Carrière ◽  
Timothy J. Dennehy ◽  
Bruce E. Tabashnik
Keyword(s):  
Population Dynamics ◽  
Nontarget Effects ◽  
Source Sink

Efficacy, Nontarget Effects, and Chemical Persistence of S-31183, a Promising Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) Control Agent

1988 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 1648-1655 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. Schaefer ◽  
T. Miura ◽  
E. F. Dupras ◽  
F. S. Mulligan ◽  
W. H. Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Control Agent ◽  
Nontarget Effects

A four-country ring test of nontarget effects of ivermectin residues on the function of coprophilous communities of arthropods in breaking down livestock dung

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1953-1958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Tixier ◽  
Wolf U. Blanckenhorn ◽  
Joost Lahr ◽  
Kevin Floate ◽  
Adam Scheffczyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ring Test ◽  
Nontarget Effects

scholarly journals Revisiting Sustainability of Fungicide Seed Treatments for Field Crops

Plant Disease ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 610-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay Ram Lamichhane ◽  
Ming Pei You ◽  
Véronique Laudinot ◽  
Martin J. Barbetti ◽  
Jean-Noël Aubertot
Keyword(s):  
Seed Treatment ◽  
Foliar Spray ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Soil Organisms ◽  
Seed Treatments ◽  
User Friendliness ◽  
Crop Species ◽  
Nontarget Effects ◽  
Development Of Resistance ◽  
Negative Impacts

The use of fungicide seed treatment (FST) is a very common practice worldwide. The purported effectiveness of many fungicides in providing broad-spectrum and systemic control of important diseases and the perception that FST reduces overall pesticide use, hence lowering environmental impacts, have greatly promoted the use of FST in the last five decades. Since there have been rapid advancements in the types, formulations, and application methods for seed treatments, there is a need to re-evaluate the benefits versus the risks of FST as a practice. While the use of seeds treated with neonicotinoid insecticides has come under scrutiny due to concern over potential nontarget effects, there are knowledge gaps on potential negative impacts of FST on operators’ (those who apply, handle, and use treated seeds) health and nontarget soil organisms (both macro- and microorganisms). Here we review existing knowledge on key fungicides used for seed treatments, benefits and risks related to FST, and propose recommendations to increase benefits and limit risks related to the use of FST. We found FST is applied to almost 100% of sown seeds for the most important arable crops worldwide. Fungicides belonging to 10 chemical families and with one or several types of mobility (contact, locally systemic, and xylem mobile) are used for seed treatment, although the majority are xylem mobile. Seed treatments are applied by the seed distributor, the seed company, and the farmer, although the proportion of seed lots treated by these three groups vary from one crop to another. The average quantity of fungicide active ingredient (a.i.) applied via seed treatment depends on the crop species, environment(s) into which seed is planted, and regional or local regulations. Cost-effectiveness, protection of the seed and seedlings from pathogens up to 4–5 weeks from sowing, user friendliness, and lower impact on human health and nontarget soil organisms compared with foliar spray and broadcast application techniques, are among the most claimed benefits attributed to FST. In contrast, inconsistent economic benefits, development of resistance by soilborne pathogens to many fungicides, exposure risks to operators, and negative impacts on nontarget soil organisms are the key identified risks related to FST. We propose eight recommendations to reduce risks related to FST and to increase their benefits.

Mechanisms, Applications, and Challenges of Insect RNA Interference

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 293-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Yan Zhu ◽  
Subba Reddy Palli
Keyword(s):  
Rna Interference ◽  
Pest Management ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Insect Pest ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Cationic Liposome ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Nontarget Effects ◽  
Development Of Resistance ◽  
Rnai Efficiency

The RNA interference (RNAi) triggered by short/small interfering RNA (siRNA) was discovered in nematodes and found to function in most living organisms. RNAi has been widely used as a research tool to study gene functions and has shown great potential for the development of novel pest management strategies. RNAi is highly efficient and systemic in coleopterans but highly variable or inefficient in many other insects. Differences in double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) degradation, cellular uptake, inter- and intracellular transports, processing of dsRNA to siRNA, and RNA-induced silencing complex formation influence RNAi efficiency. The basic dsRNA delivery methods include microinjection, feeding, and soaking. To improve dsRNA delivery, various new technologies, including cationic liposome–assisted, nanoparticle-enabled, symbiont-mediated, and plant-mediated deliveries, have been developed. Major challenges to widespread use of RNAi in insect pest management include variable RNAi efficiency among insects, lack of reliable dsRNA delivery methods, off-target and nontarget effects, and potential development of resistance in insect populations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document