4.3 Article

Acute Oral and Contact Toxicity of Three Plant Protection Products to Adult Solitary Bees Osmia bicornis

期刊

POLISH JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 4105-4113

出版社

HARD
DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/130516

关键词

insecticides; pollinators; acute toxicity; red mason bee; ecological risk assessment

资金

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [2015/19/B/NZ8/01939, DS/WBiNoZ/INoS/756/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Worldwide bee pollinators have declined in recent decades due to the widespread use of pesticides. The sensitivity of wild bees to pesticides is not well-studied, and there is an urgent need to ensure that pesticide usage does not harm pollinator populations.
Bee pollinators decline worldwide over the last decades mainly due to the widespread use of pesticides. However, the data on wild bee sensitivity to pesticides are scarce. As it may not be possible to stop using pesticides at the moment due to a growing food demand, we need to make every effort to ensure that they are used in a way that do not jeopardize pollinator populations. We tested the toxicity of three agrochemicals, namely Dursban 480 EC with chlorpyrifos as active ingredient (a.i.), Sherpa 100 EC (a.i. cypermethrin), and Mospilan 20 SP (a.i. acetamiprid), to female Osmia bicornis through oral and contact exposures. The estimated LC(50)s at infinite-time were lower than concentrations recommended for field application for Dursban in both exposure routes, whereas in case of Sherpa and Mospilan the values were lower for oral exposure only. Regardless of the exposure mute, high mortality in less than 24 hours was observed in Dursban-treated bees at a fraction of concentration actually used by farmers in the field, indicating high toxicity of this product to O. bicornis. Therefore, some commonly used insecticides may cause unacceptable effects to pollinators even when applied in the field according to recommendations, indicating the urgent need for revising current pesticide usage regulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据