Dissipation and cross-contamination of miticides in apiculture. Evaluation by APIStrip-based sampling

Murcia-Morales, María; Díaz-Galiano, Francisco José; Guitérrez-Tirado, Inmaculada; Flores, José Manuel; Steen, J.J.M. van der; Fernández‐Alba, Amadeo R.

doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130783

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, algicides (acaricides) destroy algae on different surfaces ( Zheng et al, 2018 ), and antifeedants prevent the destruction of plants or harvested and preserved crops by other pests which could feed on them ( Peprah-Yamoah et al, 2022 ). Herbicides prevent the growth of weeds and eliminate them ( Loddo et al, 2019 ), while miticides are used to kill termites or ticks that destroy crops ( Murcia-Morales et al, 2021 ). Similarly, bactericides and fungicides get rid of harmful bacteria and fungi, respectively, or inhibit their growth without tampering with the beneficial ones ( Ullah and Dijkstra, 2019 ; Akanmu et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Classification Of Pesticidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the years, synthetic pesticides like herbicides, algicides, miticides, bactericides, fumigants, termiticides, repellents, insecticides, molluscicides, nematicides, and pheromones have been used to improve crop yield. When pesticides are used, the over-application and excess discharge into water bodies during rainfall often lead to death of fish and other aquatic life. Even when the fishes still live, their consumption by humans may lead to the biomagnification of chemicals in the body system and can cause deadly diseases, such as cancer, kidney diseases, diabetes, liver dysfunction, eczema, neurological destruction, cardiovascular diseases, and so on. Equally, synthetic pesticides harm the soil texture, soil microbes, animals, and plants. The dangers associated with the use of synthetic pesticides have necessitated the need for alternative use of organic pesticides (biopesticides), which are cheaper, environment friendly, and sustainable. Biopesticides can be sourced from microbes (e.g., metabolites), plants (e.g., from their exudates, essential oil, and extracts from bark, root, and leaves), and nanoparticles of biological origin (e.g., silver and gold nanoparticles). Unlike synthetic pesticides, microbial pesticides are specific in action, can be easily sourced without the need for expensive chemicals, and are environmentally sustainable without residual effects. Phytopesticides have myriad of phytochemical compounds that make them exhibit various mechanisms of action, likewise, they are not associated with the release of greenhouse gases and are of lesser risks to human health compared to the available synthetic pesticides. Nanobiopesticides have higher pesticidal activity, targeted or controlled release with top-notch biocompatibility and biodegradability. In this review, we examined the different types of pesticides, the merits, and demerits of synthetic pesticides and biopesticides, but more importantly, we x-rayed appropriate and sustainable approaches to improve the acceptability and commercial usage of microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides for plant nutrition, crop protection/yield, animal/human health promotion, and their possible incorporation into the integrated pest management system.

show abstract

Section: Classification Of Pesticidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the past decade, multiple surveys across the U.S. have detected high concentrations of miticides and other pesticides inside most hives, independent of the type of beekeeping management style practiced [ 9 , 11 , 24 , 28 ]. The most comprehensive survey of pesticide residues in beekeeping operations to date was that conducted by Mullin et al [ 9 ], who screened for the presence of over 170 chemicals and toxic metabolites in 887 bee, wax, and honey samples collected from commercial apiaries across the U.S.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, brood frames contaminated with both products showed increased worker mortality and delayed development. This is not surprising, given that tau -fluvalinate and coumaphos stay in the wax matrix over time, and cross-contamination among combs and between colonies is possible [ 28 ]. Wax contaminated with these miticides has also been linked to “queen events,” which are described as occurrences of premature queen replacement or death [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Queen mortality is considered one of the leading causes of colony deaths in the U.S. [ 7 , 12 , 50 – 52 ] and is likely caused, at least in part, by queens being exposed to contaminated wax during development [ 28 ]. Not surprisingly, miticide exposure has been shown to affect queen fertility in various ways: mated queens exhibit lower count and viability of the sperm stored in their spermatheca, and young queens have lower body and ovary weight when they are exposed to miticides either orally or topically [ 53 – 56 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transcriptomic analysis of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen brain reveals that gene expression is affected by pesticide exposure during development

Dickey¹,

Walsh²,

Shepherd³

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honey bees (Apis mellifera) play a pivotal role in agricultural production worldwide, primarily through the provision of pollination services. But despite their importance, honey bee health continues to be threatened by many factors, including parasitization by the mite Varroa destructor, poor queen quality, and pesticide exposure. Accumulation of pesticides in the hive’s comb matrix over time inevitably leads to the exposure of developing brood, including queens, to wax contaminated with multiple compounds. Here, we characterized the brain transcriptome of queens that were reared in wax contaminated with pesticides commonly found in commercial beekeeping operations including either (a) a combination of 204,000 ppb of tau-fluvalinate and 91,900 ppb of coumaphos (“FC” group), (b) a combination of 9,800 ppb of chlorpyrifos and 53,700 ppb of chlorothalonil (“CC” group), or (c) 43,000 ppb of amitraz (“A” group). Control queens were reared in pesticide-free wax. Adult queens were allowed to mate naturally before being dissected. RNA isolated from brain tissue from three individuals per treatment group was sequenced using three technical replicates per queen. Using a cutoff log2 fold-change value of 1.5, we identified 247 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the FC group, 244 in the CC treatment group, and 668 in the A group, when comparing each group to the control. This is the first study to examine the sublethal effects of pesticides commonly found in wax (particularly amitraz) on the queen’s brain transcriptome. Future studies should further explore the relationship between our molecular findings and the queen’s behavior and physiology.

show abstract

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beekeepers have various options to control the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bee colonies, but no empirical data are available on the methods they apply in practice. We surveyed 28,409 beekeepers maintaining 507,641 colonies in 30 European countries concerning Varroa control methods. The set of 19 different Varroa diagnosis and control measures was taken from the annual COLOSS questionnaire on honey bee colony losses. The most frequent activities were monitoring of Varroa infestations, drone brood removal, various oxalic acid applications and formic acid applications. Correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering on principal components showed that six Varroa control options (not necessarily the most used ones) significantly contribute to defining three distinctive clusters of countries in terms of Varroa control in Europe. Cluster I (eight Western European countries) is characterized by use of amitraz strips. Cluster II comprises 15 countries from Scandinavia, the Baltics, and Central-Southern Europe. This cluster is characterized by long-term formic acid treatments. Cluster III is characterized by dominant usage of amitraz fumigation and formed by seven Eastern European countries. The median number of different treatments applied per beekeeper was lowest in cluster III. Based on estimation of colony numbers in included countries, we extrapolated the proportions of colonies treated with different methods in Europe. This suggests that circa 62% of colonies in Europe are treated with amitraz, followed by oxalic acid for the next largest percentage of colonies. We discuss possible factors determining the choice of Varroa control measures in the different clusters.

show abstract

Dissipation and cross-contamination of miticides in apiculture. Evaluation by APIStrip-based sampling

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides

Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides

Transcriptomic analysis of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen brain reveals that gene expression is affected by pesticide exposure during development

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About