Non-target effects of insecticides and herbicides on earwigs.

Aldo Hanel, Louis B Nottingham, Tobin D Northfield, Rebecca Schmidt-Jeffris
{"title":"Non-target effects of insecticides and herbicides on earwigs.","authors":"Aldo Hanel, Louis B Nottingham, Tobin D Northfield, Rebecca Schmidt-Jeffris","doi":"10.1093/jee/toaf012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conservation biological control in agriculture primarily relies on avoiding pesticides that may harm key natural enemies. In temperate tree fruit crops, the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (L.) has only recently become appreciated as an important predator of economic pests, particularly woolly aphids and pear psylla. Therefore, the non-target effects of orchard pesticides on earwigs are largely understudied. This is particularly true for herbicides, which earwigs are likely to be exposed to due to their foraging behavior moving between the canopy and the ground cover. We tested residues of formulated pesticides (8 insecticides and 7 herbicides) commonly used in tree fruit crops for lethal and sublethal (movement, predation rate) effects on adult female earwigs. Two herbicides, paraquat and glufosinate, and one insecticide, spinetoram, were acutely toxic to earwigs within 72 h. No tested pesticides altered earwigs' movement or resting behavior compared to the control. The insecticides spinosad and cyantraniliprole and the herbicides 2,4-D, glufosinate, halosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and oxyfluorfen reduced earwig predation on green peach aphids. Therefore, these pesticides may reduce earwig predation on pests in orchards. Our results suggest that some pesticides are of greater risk, and thus, should be carefully considered or better timed when used in tree fruit orchards where earwigs are considered for conservation or augmentative biological control.</p>","PeriodicalId":94077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of economic entomology","volume":" ","pages":"541-550"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of economic entomology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaf012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conservation biological control in agriculture primarily relies on avoiding pesticides that may harm key natural enemies. In temperate tree fruit crops, the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (L.) has only recently become appreciated as an important predator of economic pests, particularly woolly aphids and pear psylla. Therefore, the non-target effects of orchard pesticides on earwigs are largely understudied. This is particularly true for herbicides, which earwigs are likely to be exposed to due to their foraging behavior moving between the canopy and the ground cover. We tested residues of formulated pesticides (8 insecticides and 7 herbicides) commonly used in tree fruit crops for lethal and sublethal (movement, predation rate) effects on adult female earwigs. Two herbicides, paraquat and glufosinate, and one insecticide, spinetoram, were acutely toxic to earwigs within 72 h. No tested pesticides altered earwigs' movement or resting behavior compared to the control. The insecticides spinosad and cyantraniliprole and the herbicides 2,4-D, glufosinate, halosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and oxyfluorfen reduced earwig predation on green peach aphids. Therefore, these pesticides may reduce earwig predation on pests in orchards. Our results suggest that some pesticides are of greater risk, and thus, should be carefully considered or better timed when used in tree fruit orchards where earwigs are considered for conservation or augmentative biological control.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
杀虫剂和除草剂对蠼螋的非靶效应。
农业中的保护性生物防治主要依赖于避免使用可能伤害主要天敌的农药。在温带果树作物中,欧洲蠼螋Forficula auricularia (L.)最近才被认为是经济害虫的重要捕食者,特别是绵蚜和梨木虱。因此,果园农药对土蜈蚣的非靶效应研究还很不足。对于除草剂尤其如此,由于蠼螋在树冠和地被物之间移动的觅食行为,它们很可能接触到除草剂。研究了果树作物常用配方农药(8种杀虫剂和7种除草剂)对成年雌蠼螋的致死和亚致死(运动、捕食率)效应。两种除草剂,百草枯和草甘膦,以及一种杀虫剂,spinetoram,在72小时内对土蜈蚣产生急性毒性。与对照组相比,没有测试农药改变土蜈蚣的运动或休息行为。杀虫剂spinosad和cyantranilprole以及除草剂2,4- d、草铵膦、halo磺隆、rim磺隆和oxyfluorfen减少了蚯蚓对绿桃蚜虫的捕食。因此,这些农药可以减少果园中土蜈蚣对害虫的捕食。我们的研究结果表明,某些农药具有较大的风险,因此,在考虑保护或加强生物防治的果树果园中,应仔细考虑或选择更好的时机使用农药。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Protective netting as a barrier against the X-disease phytoplasma vector Colladonus reductus (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) in cherry orchards. Identification of lethal genes for RNAi-mediated control of Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Morphological and molecular identification of Oryctes species and their potential role in transmitting pathogenic fungi to date palms in Al-Kharj and Al-Qassim regions, Saudi Arabia. A rapid and non-destructive method to discriminate irradiated Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) using near-infrared spectroscopy. Why advances in sampling have not translated into improved arthropod pest management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1