Chemometric modeling of plant protection products (PPPs) for the prediction of acute contact toxicity against honey bees (A. mellifera): A 2D-QSAR approach

2021 ◽  
pp. 127230
Author(s):  
Rajendra Kumar Mukherjee ◽  
Vinay Kumar ◽  
Kunal Roy
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Contact Toxicity ◽  
2D Qsar

scholarly journals Inert agricultural spray adjuvants may increase the adverse effects of selected insecticides on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) under laboratory conditions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Wernecke ◽  
Jakob H. Eckert ◽  
Rolf Forster ◽  
Nils Kurlemann ◽  
Richard Odemer
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Proportional Hazard ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazard ◽  
Lambda Cyhalothrin ◽  
Test Guideline ◽  
Spray Adjuvants

Abstract Currently, more than 350 spray adjuvants are registered in Germany (January 2021). Unlike plant protection products (PPPs), adjuvants are not subjected to regulatory risk assessment. In practice, numerous combinations of PPPs and adjuvants are therefore possible. Thus, tank mixtures containing insecticides that are classified as nonhazardous to bees and approved for use in bee attractive crops may raise pollinator safety concerns when mixed with efficacy increasing adjuvants. This study analyzes whether selected “PPP-adjuvant” combinations result in increased mortality and pose an elevated risk to honey bees. To answer this question, we chose six common spray adjuvants of different classes for laboratory screening. These were then tested in a total of 30 tank mixtures, each with a neonicotinoid (acetamiprid), pyrethroid (lambda-cyhalothrin), diamide (chlorantraniliprole), carbamate (pirimicarb), and butenolide (flupyradifurone) formulation. We followed OECD test guideline 214 (acute contact test) but adopted the use of a professional spray chamber for more realistic exposures. Our results showed that, in total, 50% of all combinations significantly reduced the lifespan of caged honey bees in comparison to individual application of insecticides. In contrast, none of the adjuvants alone affected bee mortality (Cox proportional hazard model, p > 0.05). With four of the five insecticide formulations, the organosilicone surfactant Break-Thru® S 301 significantly increased bee mortality within 72 h (for all insecticides except chlorantraniliprole). Furthermore, acetamiprid yielded the highest and second-highest mortality increases from a tank mixture with the crop oil surfactants LI-700 (hazard ratio = 28.84, p < 0.05) and Break-Thru® S 301 (hazard ratio = 14.66, p < 0.05), respectively. In the next step, field trials should be performed to provide a more realistic exposure scenario under colony conditions to verify these findings.

scholarly journals Effects of Plant Protection Products on Biochemical Markers in Honey Bees

Agriculture ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 648
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Murawska ◽  
Paweł Migdał ◽  
Adam Roman
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Semen Quality ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Ornamental Plants ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Sublethal Dose ◽  
Cytochrome P450 Monooxygenases ◽  
Biochemical Effect ◽  
Behavior Understanding ◽  
P450 Monooxygenases

Plant protection products (PPPs) are pesticides that protect crops and ornamental plants. PPPs include primarily insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Bees’ contact with PPPs can cause immediate death or, in sublethal dose, may affect their physiology and/or behavior. Understanding the effect of PPPs’ sublethal doses is especially important. Contact with a sublethal dose of PPPs generally allows the bee to return to the hive, which may expose the whole colony to the harmful substance. Biochemical changes may affect colony condition, health, and performance. Most of the research on the biochemical effects of PPP in honey bees focuses on insecticides and among them neonicotinoids (especially imidacloprid). The vast majority of research is carried out on Apis mellifera workers. A small part of the research has been conducted on drones and queens. Pesticides, including fungicides and herbicides, may alter antioxidant defense, detoxification, gene expression, and immune response of the bee. They affect the drones’ semen quality and metabolic rate of the queen. In this review, the biochemical effect of PPP products in the honey bee was examined, with a focus on the effect on cytochrome P450 monooxygenases, glutathione transferases, and carboxylesterases, which take part in toxin metabolism or the detoxification process. PPPs effects on the activity of glutathione peroxidase (GPX), catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), proteases, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and phenoloxidase (PO) are also presented.

scholarly journals Inert agricultural spray adjuvants may increase the adverse effects of selected insecticides on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) under laboratory conditions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Wernecke ◽  
Jakob H. Eckert ◽  
Rolf Forster ◽  
Nils Kurlemann ◽  
Richard Odemer
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Application Rate ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Proportional Hazard ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazard ◽  
Lambda Cyhalothrin ◽  
Spray Adjuvants

AbstractCurrently, more than 360 spray adjuvants are registered in Germany (September 2021). Unlike plant protection products (PPPs), adjuvants are not subjected to regulatory risk assessment. In practice, numerous combinations of PPPs and adjuvants are therefore possible. Thus, tank mixtures containing insecticides that are classified as non-hazardous to bees up to the highest approved application rate or concentration may raise pollinator safety concerns when mixed with efficacy increasing adjuvants and applied in bee-attractive crops. This study analyzes whether selected “PPP–adjuvant” combinations result in increased contact mortality and pose an elevated risk to honey bees. To answer this question, we chose six common spray adjuvants of different classes for laboratory screening. These were then tested in a total of 30 tank mixtures, each with a neonicotinoid (acetamiprid), pyrethroid (lambda-cyhalothrin), diamide (chlorantraniliprole), carbamate (pirimicarb), and butenolide (flupyradifurone) formulation. We adapted an acute contact test (OECD Test Guideline 214) to our needs, e.g., by using a professional spray chamber for more realistic exposures. Our results showed that, in total, 50% of all combinations significantly increased the mortality of caged honey bees in comparison with individual application of insecticides. In contrast, none of the adjuvants alone affected bee mortality (Cox proportional hazard model, p > 0.05). With four of the five insecticide formulations, the organosilicone surfactant Break-Thru® S 301 significantly increased bee mortality within 72 h (for all insecticides except chlorantraniliprole). Furthermore, acetamiprid yielded the highest and second highest mortality increases from a tank mixture with the crop oil surfactant LI 700® (hazard ratio = 28.84, p < 0.05) and the organosilicone Break-Thru® S 301 (hazard ratio = 14.66, p < 0.05), respectively. To assess risk in a more field-realistic setting, field trials should be performed to provide a more realistic exposure scenario under colony conditions.

scholarly journals Effect of the Application Date of Fertilizer Containing Silicon and Potassium on the Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet Roots

Plants ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 370
Author(s):  
Arkadiusz Artyszak ◽  
Dariusz Gozdowski ◽  
Alicja Siuda
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Foliar Application ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Water Shortage ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Yield Increase ◽  
Time Of Application ◽  
Technological Quality

Water shortage and drought are a growing problem in Europe. Therefore, effective methods for limiting its effects are necessary. At the same time, the “field to fork” strategy adopted by the European Commission aims to achieve a significant reduction in the use of plant protection products and fertilizers in the European Union. In an experiment conducted in 2018–2020, the effect of the method of foliar fertilization containing silicon and potassium on the yield and technological quality of sugar beet roots was assessed. The fertilizer was used in seven combinations, differing in the number and time of application. The best results were obtained by treating plants during drought stress. The better soil moisture for the plants, the smaller the pure sugar yield increase was observed. It is difficult to clearly state which combination of silicon and potassium foliar application is optimal, as their effects do not differ greatly.

scholarly journals The Role of Source‐sink Dynamics in the Assessment of Risk to Non‐target Arthropods from the Use of Plant Protection Products

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gavin Lewis ◽  
Axel Dinter ◽  
Charlotte Elston ◽  
Michael Thomas Marx ◽  
Christoph Julian Mayer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Source Sink
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document