Beyond neonicotinoids - Wild pollinators are exposed to a range of pesticides while foraging in agroecosystems ; Science of the Total Environment

Abstract

Pesticide exposure is a growing global concern for pollinator conservation. While most current pesticide studies have specifically focused on the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides toward honeybees and some native bee species, wild pollinators may be exposed to a broader range of agrochemicals. In 2016 and 2017 we collected a total of 637 wild bees and butterflies from the margins of cultivated agricultural fields situated on five Conservation Areas in mid-northern Missouri. Pollinators were composited by individual genera (90 samples) and whole tissues were then analyzed for the presence of 168 pesticides and degradation products. At least one pesticide was detected (% frequency) in the following wild bee genera: Bombus (96%), Eucera (75%), Melissodes (73%), Pnlothrix (50%), Xylocopa (50%), and Megachile ( 17%). Similarly, at least one pesticide was detected in the following lepidopteran genera: Hemaris (100%), Hylephila (75%), Danaus (60%), and Colitis (50%). Active ingredients detected in >2% of overall pollinator samples were as follows: metolachlor (24%), tebuconazole (22%), atrazine (18%), iinidadoprid desnitro (13%), bifenthrin (9%), flumetralin (9%), p, p'-DDD (6%), tebupirimfos (4%), Iludioxonil (4%), flutriafol (3%), cyproconazole (2%), and oxacliazon (2%). Concentrations of individual pesticides ranged from 2 to 174 ng/g. Results of this pilot field study indicate that wild pollinators arc exposed to and are potentially bioaccumulating a wide variety of pesticides in addition to neonicotinoids. Here, we provide evidence that wild bee and butterfly genera may face exposure to a wide range of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides despite being collected from areas managed for conservation. Therefore, even with the presence of extensive habitat, minimal agricultural activity on Conservation Areas may expose pollinators to a range of pesticides. Published by Elsevier B.V. ; MDC; Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit; USDA-NIFAUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [MO-HANR0007]; Multi-State Working Group W3045 [MOMSNR0002]; University of Missouri; U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUS Fish & Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological SurveyUnited States Geological Survey; Wildlife Management Institute; USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology ProgramUnited States Geological Survey ; We thank the following individuals for assistance in field data collection and lab sample preparation: W. Boys, K. Kuechle, J. Murray, and J. Piercefield. Thank you to C. Sanders, M. McWayne and M. De Parsia who processed the pollinators for pesticide analysis. Special thanks to all of the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) Area Managers, biologists, and their staff for their willingness to support this research: B. Anderson, D. Bryant, J. Demand, B. Diekmann, C. Freeman, A. Pearson, C. Smith, and N. Walker. This work was funded through a cooperative agreement with the MDC in collaboration with L. Webb and K. Goyne. Partial support was also provided by the Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and USDA-NIFA through Hatch funding (MO-HANR0007) and Multi-State Working Group W3045 (MOMSNR0002). The Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly sponsored by MDC, the University of Missouri, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and theWildlife Management Institute. Pesticide residue analysis was supported by the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ; Public domain authored by a U.S. government employee