DOCSLIB.ORG

Neonicotinoid Seed Coatings, Crop Yields and Pollinators

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neonicotinoid Seed Coatings, Crop Yields and Pollinators INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND TRADE POLICY Unknown Benefits, Hidden Costs Neonicotinoid Seed Coatings, Crop Yields and Pollinators By Jim Kleinschmit and Ben Lilliston Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy August 2015 Unknown Benefits, Hidden Costs: Neonicotinoid Seed Coatings, Crop Yields and Pollinators By Jim Kleinschmit and Ben Lilliston Published August 2015 The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. More at iatp.org There is a growing body of science directly implicating farmers at field days about the actual costs and benefits of neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides in the significant decline neonicotinoids and other seed coatings related to both crop of bees and other pollinators.1 Neonicotinoids are applied production and the environment, including pollinators. Yet in multiple ways in many parts of agriculture and horticul- this isn’t happening with neonicotinoids or other seed coating ture, but are most prevalent as a seed coating material for ingredients today. With such a clear market failure, it appears agricultural commodity crops like corn and soybeans. Based farmers—together with research partners and farm organi- on convincing and mounting evidence and data, beekeepers, zations—need resources to take this matter into their own scientists and other individuals concerned about pollinators hands. We need credible, farmer-led field trials that compare are working together to spur regulatory action and shifts in different seed coatings and traits, and that information the marketplace to reduce the use of neonicotinoids. should be shared with other farmers. Only with complete information and choice—about neonicotinoids, but also other In May 2015, the White House issued an interagency report crop management tools—can farmers make smart choices entititled “National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey that allow them to produce crops and take care of pollinators Bees and other Pollinators.”2 The strategy focuses on efforts and the environment. to restore honey bee loss, increase monarch butterfly popula- tions and restore pollinator habitats. But, the White House plan virtually ignores the on-the-ground farm economics Neonicotinoids and Pollinator that directly contribute to rising neonic use in seed coating– Decline: Clear Connections specifically the role of a few large companies that have a Pollinators are essential to the environment and our food stranglehold on the seed market. The concentrated market supply. Nearly one out of every three bites of food relies on power in the seed industry has allowed a few multi-billion pollination from honey bees. Beyond the many crops that are dollar companies to significantly limit U.S. farmers’ choice almost entirely pollinator-dependent, pollinators also have around seed coating. been shown to boost yield and quality in less dependent crops, providing clear economic benefits to almost all farmers.3 Most This lack of choice—in most cases, the seed is coated with people know that honey and wild bees are pollinators, but neonicotinoids whether wanted or not—in turn has made it there are many others, including butterflies, moths, beetles, difficult for farmers and their advisors to assess the actual flies, bats and hummingbirds. They carry seeds and pollen value of these pesticides in crop production, or to under- between plants, facilitating plant reproduction. Without stand their true financial and environmental costs. Most them, we would lose much of our food supply, put wildlife farmers understand the value of pollinators to plant growth food and habitat at risk, and compromise plants that stabilize and the food system and would not intentionally harm them. soils against erosion and buffer waterways. However, without credible information on the risks or the freedom to choose their seed coating, farmers are left with Pollinator decline has been found on every continent in the little choice but to accept what their seed company delivers. world, and hundreds of pollinator species are on the verge of extinction. Since 2006, bees in the U.S. have been dying off or Fortunately, there are some independent seed companies seemingly abandoning their hives—a phenomenon known as and dealers willing to provide farmers with information and Colony Collapse Disorder.4 choice around seed coatings. Representing a small segment of a highly consolidated industry, independent seed producers While there are many contributors to pollinator decline, two and dealers are able and willing to respond to market changes of the most important are the loss of habitat and the intro- and farmer preferences associated with not only neonic- duction and expansion of use of new pesticides on agricultural otinoids, but also other areas of market interest, such as non- cropland. A specific concern centers on neonicotinoids, a rela- genetically modified organisms (GMOs), cover and specialty tively new class of systemic insecticides,often applied as a crops. But a farmer’s ability to choose what kind of seed coat- seed coating in commodity agriculture. ings they want to utilize as part of their crop management system should be the rule, not the exception, in farming and Neonicotinoids are used to control a wide variety of insects. the seed market. The first neonicotinoid,imidacloprid (Admire), became avail- able in the United States in 1994 and is currently present in One of the most basic and necessary aspects of a free market is over 400 products on the market. Other neonic insecticides available and accurate information about products and their include acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nitenpyram, thio- efficacy, cost and benefits. It should go without saying, then, cloprid, and thiamethoxam. In 2006, neonicotinoids accounted that in a competitive marketplace, farmers should receive for over 17 percent of the global insecticide market.5 Two of accurate, up-to-date information from researchers and other them—clothianidin and thiamethoxam—dominate the global UNKNOWN BENEFITS, HIDDEN COSTS: NEONICOTINOID SEED COATINGS, CROP YIELDS AND POLLINATORS 3 droplets – small drops of liquid exuded by some plants). That Total U.S. managed honey bee colonies pollen then gets passed onto other plants, or taken to the Loss Estimates hive in the case of bees, where it can impact other pollinators. Although thought to be less harmful to birds and mammals 50% than many other insecticides, neonicotinoids are incredibly toxic to bees and other insects.9 They are harmful to bumble bees by reducing the number of new queens for the hive, 40% impairing foraging ability and reducing reproductive capacity, ) according to the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conserva- 30% tion. Recent research shows that seed coatings can negatively impact wild bees.10 In addition, the pharmacological action 20% associated with neonicotinoids, like nicotine, continually Winter Loss (% draws bees to it, as found by another new study published in Nature.11 Chronic exposure is likely to occur when pollinators 10% are foraging in agricultural settings where almost all crops have been treated with neonicotinoids in some form. 0% 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 Death is not the only outcome of pesticide exposure. Sub- Acceptable Level lethal doses of neonicotinoids can disrupt pollinators’ cogni- tive abilities, communication and physiology. Neonicotinoids Total Winter Loss also have harmful synergistic impacts on pollinators in Total Annual Loss combination with other chemicals in the field, compounding Source: Total Estimated Honey Bee Loss Estimates. Bee Informed. their effects. Scientists have shown in multiple studies that http://beeinformed.org/2015/05/colony-loss-2014-2015- the combined presence of neonicotinoids and some fungicides preliminary-results/ (Accessed May 13, 2015). market for insecticidal seed treatments and are used to coat can increase the potency of neonicotinoids by more than the seeds of most of the annual crops planted around the 1,000-fold.12 world. In fact, more than 94 percent of the corn and more than 30 percent of the soy planted in the United States is pretreated In addition to their toxicity, neonicotinoids persist in with neonicotinoids.6 plants much longer than most other insecticides, thereby compounding their impact on pollinators. They can reside When first introduced, neonicotinoids were touted as an in plant tissues for over a year, and some can persist for even improvement over other organophosphate pesticides because longer in the soil. This means pollinators and other animals they didn’t need to be sprayed in the same way. Now, two are exposed to the chemicals for extended periods of time and decades into their expanded use, the evidence is increasingly in some regions year round. clear that this class of pesticides is particularly harmful to bees and other pollinators.7,8 Neonicotinoids are water soluble Seed treatment applications are prophylactic, meaning they and systemic, meaning they travel through a plant’s vascular are used whether or not there is any evidence of pest pres- system when applied and are transported throughout all sures. At least 30 percent of soybean seeds planted annu- parts of the plant, including leaves, stems, flowers, fruit, ally (approximately 22.5 million out of 75 million acres) are pollen and nectar. Their systemic nature and persistence was pretreated with neonic insecticides (two of the primary four the initial selling point, as
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Soil-Water Transport of a Seed Coated Neonicotinoid Pesticide in Soybean/Maize Cultivation Systems
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2016 SOIL-WATER TRANSPORT OF A SEED COATED NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE IN SOYBEAN/MAIZE CULTIVATION SYSTEMS Geoffrey Nathaniel Duesterbeck University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Apiculture Commons, and the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Duesterbeck, Geoffrey Nathaniel, "SOIL-WATER TRANSPORT OF A SEED COATED NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE IN SOYBEAN/MAIZE CULTIVATION SYSTEMS. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2016. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4033 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Geoffrey Nathaniel Duesterbeck entitled "SOIL- WATER TRANSPORT OF A SEED COATED NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE IN SOYBEAN/MAIZE CULTIVATION SYSTEMS." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Entomology and Plant Pathology. John A. Skinner, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Scott D. Stewart, Andrea L. Ludwig Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) SOIL-WATER TRANSPORT OF A SEED COATED NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE IN SOYBEAN/MAIZE CULTIVATION SYSTEMS A Thesis Presented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Geoffrey Nathaniel Duesterbeck August 2016 Copyright © 2016 by Geoffrey Nathaniel Duesterbeck All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee
    United States Department of Agriculture Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee Sheraton Suites Old Town Alexandria Hotel Alexandria, Virginia October 15–17, 2012 National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee USDA Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) David Epstein Pennsylvania State University, Department of Entomology James L. Frazier USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Mary Purcell-Miramontes USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Kevin Hackett USDA Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) Robyn Rose USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Terrell Erickson U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Thomas Moriarty Thomas Steeger Cover: Honey bee on a sunflower. Photo courtesy of Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University, Bugwood.org. Disclaimer: This is a report presenting the proceedings of a stakeholder conference organized and conducted by members of the National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee on October 15-17, 2012 in Alexandria, VA. The views expressed in this report are those of the presenters and participants and do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the United States Government (USG). iii Executive Summary After news broke in November 2006 about Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a potentially new
    [Show full text]
  • COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER by Chelsea Gifford University Of
    COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER THE VANISHING HONEYBEE (APIS MELLIFERA) By Chelsea Gifford University of Colorado at Boulder A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Boulder in partial fulfillment of the requirements to receive Honors designation in Environmental Studies May 2011 Thesis Advisors: Michael D. Breed, Biology Department, Committee Chair Diana Oliveras, Baker RAP Biology Program Dale Miller, Environmental Studies Department © 2010 by Chelsea Gifford All rights reserved Abstract Colony collapse disorder (CCD) was first reported on the east coast of the United States in 2006. Symptoms of CCD include the rapid loss of adult worker honeybees, few or no dead bees found in the hive, presence of immature bees (brood) and a small cluster of bees with a live queen present, as well as pollen and honey stores still in the hive. Honeybees (Apis mellifera) are a keystone species because they provide a number of pollination services for various ecosystems. They are also extremely important organisms within human society, both agriculturally and economically. With a third of human food coming directly and indirectly from honeybee pollination, colony collapse disorder will have significant economic, ecological, and social impacts if further colony losses are not prevented. The fact that a direct cause has not been determined suggests that CCD is a complex problem with a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors. Possible instigators of CCD include: mites, viral and fungal diseases, increased commercial transportation, decreased genetic diversity, pesticides, and a variety of other factors. The interaction among these potential causes may be resulting in immunity loss for honeybees and the increased likelihood of collapse.
    [Show full text]
  • The North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on Lindane and Other Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) Isomers
    The North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on Lindane and Other Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) Isomers 30 November 2006 Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................5 COMMON ACRONYMS .......................................................................................7 1. PREFACE.....................................................................................................8 2. PREAMBLE..................................................................................................9 3. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................10 3.1. Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................11 3.2. Guiding Considerations.......................................................................................11 3.3. Background and Rationale..................................................................................12 3.3.1. Long-range Transport, Exposure, Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity Considerations ....... 12 3.3.2. Production of Lindane and other HCH Isomers ............................................................ 15 3.3.3. Overview of Use of Lindane in North America .............................................................. 16 3.3.4. History and Current Status of Lindane in Canada ........................................................ 16 3.3.5. History and Current Status of Lindane
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides and Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder
    1 of Publication30th Year Volume XXX, Number 9/10, September/October 2008 Pesticides and Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder By William Quarles Photo courtesy of Kathy Keatley Garvey bout one-third of all the food we eat requires animal polli- A nation, and most of our fruits, vegetables, and nuts are pol- linated by bees. Due to increased development, pesticides, and habi- tat destruction, native bees that pollinated many of our crops are in decline (Buchmann and Nabhan 1996). Crop production in the U.S. has shifted to large monocultures, pollinated almost entirely by com- mercially managed colonies of the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Large beekeepers transport thousands of bee colonies long distances to pro- vide crop pollination throughout the U.S. (USHR 2007; 2008; NAS 2007). Large numbers of bees are needed for pollination, and available colonies are overworked. About half University of California, Davis researcher and beekeeper Michael “Kim” the honey bees in the U.S. are Fondrk is shown tending bees in the Roy Gill almond orchard, Dixon, needed just to pollinate the 650,000 California. The boxes are beehives, and more than a million of these acre (263,000 ha) California almond colonies are needed to pollinate California almonds. crop. Honey bees are trucked like migrant workers into California for and Calderone 2000; Losey and This 45% reduction in honey bee the almond crop, then to Washing- Vaughn 2006). colonies has been a slow decline ton and Oregon for apples, to marked at points by disaster. Florida for citrus, and into the Disasters include widespread honey Northeast for blueberries.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices for Farmers Using Seeds Treated with Neonicotinoid Insecticides Dr
    Best Management Practices for Farmers Using Seeds Treated With Neonicotinoid Insecticides Dr. Kimberly Stoner Neonicotinoids are a group of insecticides that have a mode of action similar to that of nicotine and are often used as seed treatments because they can travel from the seed into the plant and control insects feeding on plants as well as on the seed. Honey bees, native bees such as bumble bees and mason bees, and many other native pollinators are critically important to Connecticut’s agricultural community. While the primary concern is acute exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides, particularly from airborne dust associated with planting of treated seed, there is growing concern regarding the chronic exposure to foraging bees from nectar, pollen, and plant guttation which supplies water bees transport back to the hive. Four neonicotinoid insecticides that are highly toxic to honey bees and native bees such as bumble bees are regulated by Connecticut Public Act 16-17 (An Act Concerning Pollinator Health): clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam. Some common trade names for insecticides used as seed treatments with these active ingredients are (1): Clothianidin: Poncho, NipsItInside, Poncho/VOTiVO Thiamethoxam: Cruiser Imidacloprid: Gaucho Although neonicotinoid seed treatments are used on a wide range of crop plants, including soybean, cotton, canola, wheat, sunflower, potato, and many vegetables (1,2), reported honey bee kills from neonicotinoids have most often been associated with dust from corn seed released by vacuum planters at planting time (3,4,5,6). In addition to affecting honey bees and native bees, neonicotinoids applied as seed treatments may also affect other beneficial insects (7,8) and contaminate groundwater, streams and wetlands (9,10,11).
    [Show full text]
  • Clothianidin & CCD :: Fact Sheet
    Clothianidin & CCD :: Fact Sheet What is Colony collapse Disorder? Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, is the name given to the mysterious decline of honeybee populations around the world beginning around 2006. Each winter since, one-third of the U.S. honeybee population has died off or disappeared (more than twice what is normal). While CCD appears to have multiple interacting causes including pathogens, a range of evidence points to sub-lethal pesticide exposures as important contributing factors. Neonicotinoids are a particularly suspect class of insecticides, especially in combination with the dozens of other pesticides found in honeybee hives. Key symptoms of CCD include: 1) inexplicable disappearance of the hive’s worker bees; 2) presence of the queen bee and absence of invaders; 3) presence of food stores and a capped brood. What are “conditional registrations”? Clothianidin was given a conditional registration in 2003. EPA is supposed to license ("register") pesticides only if they meet standards for protection of environment and human health. But pesticide law allows EPA to waive these requirements and grant a "conditional" registration when health and safety data are lacking in the case of a new pesticide, allowing companies to sell the pesticide before EPA gets safety data. The company is supposed to submit the data by the end of the conditional registration period. Conditional registrations account for two-thirds of current pesticide product registrations. It is a common practice for the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, to afford rapid market access for products that remain in use for many years before they are tested. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, of the 16,000 current product registrations: 11,000 (68%) have been conditionally registered; almost 8,200 products have been conditionally registered (―CR status‖) since 2005; approximately 5,400 products have had CR status since 2000; and over 2,100 products have had CR status since 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to Neonicotinoid Insecticide-Coated Corn Seed
    ALTERNATIVES TO NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDE-COATED CORN SEED: AGROECOLOGICAL METHODS ARE BETTER FOR FARMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT MAY 2017 ABOUT CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY CENTER FOR FOOD SAFEY (CFS) is a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy membership organization established in 1997 for the purpose of challenging harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable agriculture. CFS combines multiple tools and strategies in pursuing its goals, including litigation and legal petitions for rulemaking, legal support for various sustainable agriculture and food safety constituencies, as well as public education, grassroots organizing, and media outreach. AUTHOR: DOUG GURIAN-SHERMAN, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks Angelika Hillbeck, Professor, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and John Tooker, Professor of Entomology, Pennsylvania State University, for their helpful reviews and suggested edits. Their reviews great- ly improved the report. At Center for Food Safety, the report was reviewed and improved by Peter Jenkins and Larissa Walker, and the copyediting of Courtney Sexton. The author also thanks Patrick Riggs for his design and production of the report, and Andrew Kimbrell for his support. The report also benefited from helpful discussions with Marcia Ishii-Eiteman at Pesticide Action Network and Michael Gray at the University of Illinois. However, in the end, the author remains solely responsible for any shortcomings in this report. To access this report as a PDF, visit Center for Food Safety online at: www.centerforfoodsafety.org/reports 2 | CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY ALTERNATIVES TO NEONICS CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 CHAPTER 1 - Introduction 11 CHAPTER 2 - The Value of Neonic Seed Coatings for Insect Pest Control 14 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Pesticide Applicator Training Manual Seed Treatment
    Seed Treatment Oregon Pesticide Applicator Training Manual OREGON PESTICIDE APPLICATOR TRAINING MANUAL SEED TREATMENT Prepared by: Bruce E. Paulsrud, Extension Specialist—Plant Pathology/PAT University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences Drew Martin, Pesticide Program Specialist Purdue University, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Mohammad Babadoost, Assistant Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences Dean Malvick, Assistant Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences Rick Weinzierl, Professor and Extension Entomologist University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences D. Craig Lindholm, Equipment Division Head Gustafson, LLC Kevin Steffey, Professor and Extension Entomologist University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences Wayne Pederson, Associate Professor of Plant Pathology University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences Mike Reed, Technical Sales Representative Gustafson, LLC Roland Maynard, Pesticides Division Oregon Department of Agriculture Poison Center The Poison Center has been established to provide information about the treatment of poisoning cases. Anyone with a poisoning emergency can call the toll-free telephone number for help 24 hours a day. Personnel at the Poison Center will give first-aid instructions and direct you to local treatment centers if necessary. Telephone: 1-800-222-1222 Note: For immediate medical assistance and transport, please dial “911” directly. Spill Assistance For major spills, Oregon law requires that emergency notification be made to the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS). They in turn notify the appropriate agencies for response. Their 24-hour emergency hotline number is (800) 452-0311 or (503) 378-4124 National Pesticide Information Center National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) is a toll-free telephone service that provides pesticide information to any caller in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers 2014
    Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers 2014 Illinois University of Illinois Extension C1373-14 Indiana Purdue Extension ID-56 Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach FG 0600 Kansas K-State Research and Extension Minnesota University of Minnesota Extension BU-07094-S Missouri University of Missouri Extension MX384 Ohio Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 948 Stay Current For the most up-to-date version of this publication, visit: mwveguide.org Changes will be made throughout the year as they are received. Abbreviations Used in This Guide PHI pre-harvest interval — the minimum allowable time in days between the latest pesticide application and crop harvest AI active ingredient COC crop oil concentrate D dust formulation DF, DG dry flowable or water dispersible granule formulation E, EC emulsifiable concentrate F flowable formulation G granular formulation L, LC liquid concentrate formulation NIS nonionic surfactant W, WP wettable powder formulation SC suspension concentrate RUP restricted use pesticide Cover photos: Cabbage is a cool-season vegetable with a growing optimum of 60°F to 65°F. It can be grown when the weather is too cool for many other vegetable crops. Insect, disease, and weed control recommendations in this publication are valid only for 2014. If registration for any of the chemicals suggested is changed during the year since the time of publication (December 2013), we will inform all area and county Extension staff. If in doubt about the use of any chemical, check with your Extension agent or chemical company representative. The information presented in this publication is believed to be accurate but is in no way guaranteed.
    [Show full text]
  • Neonicotinoid Soybean Seed Treatments Provide Negligible Benefits to US Farmers
    Neonicotinoid soybean seed treatments provide negligible benefits to US farmers Spyridon Mourtzinis, Christian H. Krupke, Paul D. Esker, Adam Varenhorst, Nicholas J. Arneson, Carl A. Bradley, Adam M. Byrne, Martin I. Chilvers, Loren J. Giesler, Ames Her- bert, Yuba R. Kandel, Maciej J. Kazula, Catherine Hunt, Laura E. Lindsey, Sean Malone, Daren S. Mueller, Seth Naeve, Emerson Nafziger, Dominic D. Reisig, William J. Ross, Devon R. Rossman, Sally Taylor, and Shawn P. Conley In a bean pod: X Across the entire region, the maximum average observed yield benefits due to fungicide (FST = fungicide seed treatment) + neonicotinoid use (FST+NST) reached 2 bu/ac. X Specific combinations of management practices minimally increased the effectiveness of FST+NST by 0.2 to 3.3 bu/ac. X Across the entire region, a partial economic analysis showed inconsistent evidence of a break-even cost of FST or FST+NST. X These results demonstrate that the current widespread prophylactic use of NST in the key soybean-producing areas of the US should be re-evalu- ated by producers and regulators alike. Introduction In the US, the most recent published estimates reflect that approximately 34-44% of planted soybean acreage are treated with neonicotinoid seed treatments (NST) (Douglas & Tooker, 2015). Based upon trendlines shown in that work, the current estimate for NST use in soybeans is very likely to exceed 50%. Insecticidal seed treat- ments of soybean belong to the neonicotinoid class of insecticides that include the active ingredients clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam. Corn and soybean seed treatments represent the largest uses of neonicotinoids nationally, and the higher seeding rate of soybeans mean that they are responsible for the highest lev- els of active ingredient per unit area (USGS, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Third Symposium on Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in the Eastern United States Asheville, North Carolina February 1-3, 2005
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Hemlock Woolly Adelgid THIRD SYMPOSIUM ON HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGID IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA FEBRUARY 1-3, 2005 Brad Onken and Richard Reardon, Compilers Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia FHTET-2005-01 U.S. Department Forest Service June 2005 of Agriculture Most of the abstracts were submitted in an electronic format, and were edited to achieve a uniform format and typeface. Each contributor is responsible for the accuracy and content of his or her own paper. Statements of the contributors from outside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture may not necessarily reflect the policy of the Department. Some participants did not submit abstracts, and so their presentations are not represented here. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. References to pesticides appear in some technical papers represented by these abstracts. Publication of these statements does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of them by the conference sponsors, nor does it imply that uses discussed have been registered. Use of most pesticides is regulated by state and federal laws. Applicable regulations must be obtained from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to their use. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife if they are not handled and applied properly.
    [Show full text]