Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Springer Verlag, Journal of Pest Science, 4(87), p. 711-719

DOI: 10.1007/s10340-014-0611-5

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Non-target effects of chlorantraniliprole and thiamethoxam on Chrysoperla carnea when employed as sunflower seed treatments

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

The use of systemic insecticides as seed treatments has raised concern about the possible impacts of these products on natural enemies. This study assessed the effects of sunflower seed treatments with chlorantraniliprole and thiamethoxam on Chrysoperla carnea by exposing larvae and adults to sunflower stem segments grown from treated seeds and the nectar secreted by their extrafloral nectaries. Confinement of larvae with stem segments for their entire developmental period had no effect on their survival or any life history parameter, except that the sex ratio of resulting adults was lower in the thiamethoxam treatment than in chlorantraniliprole. However, when adult pairs of C. carnea were exposed to treated stem segments during their maturation period, their subsequent survival and fecundity was significantly reduced by both materials, with thiamethoxam reducing median survival (LT50) and fecundity to a greater degree than chlorantraniliprole. Insufficient offspring were obtained from adults exposed to thiamethoxam to permit assessment of their fitness, but the offspring in the chlorantraniliproleexposed adults had reduced larval survival relative to controls. The greater impact of seed treatments on adult lacewings may be partly attributable to their greater consumption of extra-floral nectar. Our results indicate that seed treatment with systemic insecticides can cause negative effects on beneficial insects, potentially disrupting their population dynamics, and should not be assumed compatible with biological control and IPM simply because this mode of application limits direct exposure.