Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee reproductive success

Harry Siviter (), Mark J. F. Brown and Ellouise Leadbeater
Additional contact information
Harry Siviter: Royal Holloway University of London
Mark J. F. Brown: Royal Holloway University of London
Ellouise Leadbeater: Royal Holloway University of London

Nature, 2018, vol. 561, issue 7721, 109-112

Abstract: Abstract Intensive agriculture currently relies on pesticides to maximize crop yield1,2. Neonicotinoids are the most widely used insecticides globally3, but increasing evidence of negative impacts on important pollinators4–9 and other non-target organisms10 has led to legislative reassessment and created demand for the development of alternative products. Sulfoximine-based insecticides are the most likely successor11, and are either licensed for use or under consideration for licensing in several worldwide markets3, including within the European Union12, where certain neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam) are now banned from agricultural use outside of permanent greenhouse structures. There is an urgent need to pre-emptively evaluate the potential sub-lethal effects of sulfoximine-based pesticides on pollinators11, because such effects are rarely detected by standard ecotoxicological assessments, but can have major impacts at larger ecological scales13–15. Here we show that chronic exposure to the sulfoximine-based insecticide sulfoxaflor, at dosages consistent with potential post-spray field exposure, has severe sub-lethal effects on bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) colonies. Field-based colonies that were exposed to sulfoxaflor during the early growth phase produced significantly fewer workers than unexposed controls, and ultimately produced fewer reproductive offspring. Differences between the life-history trajectories of treated and control colonies first became apparent when individuals exposed as larvae began to emerge, suggesting that direct or indirect effects on a small cohort may have cumulative long-term consequences for colony fitness. Our results caution against the use of sulfoximines as a direct replacement for neonicotinoids. To avoid continuing cycles of novel pesticide release and removal, with concomitant impacts on the environment, a broad evidence base needs to be assessed prior to the development of policy and regulation.

Keywords: Sulfoxaflor; Neonicotinoid; Colonial Control; Clothianidin; Imidacloprid (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0430-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:nature:v:561:y:2018:i:7721:d:10.1038_s41586-018-0430-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0430-6

Access Statistics for this article

Nature is currently edited by Magdalena Skipper

More articles in Nature from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().