Lethal and sublethal side-effect assessment supports a more benign profile of spinetoram compared with spinosad in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris
Lethal and sublethal side-effect assessment supports a more benign profile of spinetoram compared with spinosad in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/ps.2093
复制
发表时间：
2011-05-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Smagghe, Guy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Besard, Linde;Mommaerts, Veerle;Smagghe, Guy
背景：本研究旨在鉴定一种新型天然杀虫剂spinetoram与spinosad对大黄蜂Bombus terrestris L.的潜在副作用，并评估其对大黄蜂繁殖和觅食行为的潜在致死效应以及生态相关的亚致死效应。在实验室条件下，从最大田间推荐浓度（MFRC）开始，再从MFRC的1/10、1/100、1/1000和1/ 10000稀释度开始，通过直接接触湿残和干残，大黄蜂工蜂暴露于不同浓度的spinetoram，并与spinosad进行比较。此外，通过口服补充糖水的副作用进行了评估。结果：直接接触湿态木皂苷和木皂苷残留量的地蠓幼虫发现，木皂苷的毒性约为木皂苷的52倍，而接触干态木皂苷的毒性约为木皂苷的8倍。口服72小时（急性）表明，与spinosad相比，spinetoram对地蚁的毒性约低4倍，而暴露较长时间（即11周）表明spinetoram的毒性低24倍。此外，口服暴露于这两种脊髓突触会对大黄蜂的繁殖产生有害的亚致死效应。spinosad的无效应浓度（NOEC）为MFRC的1/1000，spinetoram为MFRC的1/100。在考虑和不考虑觅食行为的情况下，评估对巢繁殖亚致死效应的慢性暴露生物测定结果表明，spinosad和spinetoram在两种生物测定中各自的NOEC值相似，这表明spinosad和spinetoram对地蚁的觅食没有不利影响。结论：综上所述，spinetoram对大黄蜂的直接接触和口服暴露均比spinosad更安全，可与地面小蠊联合使用。另一个重要的结论是，目前的数据提供了强有力的证据，表明spinsyn对这些益虫的觅食行为都没有负面影响。然而，在得出最终结论之前，还应该在更现实的野外相关情况下对spinetoram和spinosad进行评估，以评估使用陆地小蠊的蜂群对觅食行为的潜在有害影响。(C) 2011年化学工业学会
BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to identify the potential side effects of the novel naturalyte insecticide spinetoram in comparison with spinosad on the bumblebee Bombus terrestris L. The potential lethal effects together with the ecologically relevant sublethal effects on aspects of bumblebee reproduction and foraging behaviour were evaluated. Bumblebee workers were exposed via direct contact with wet and dry residues under laboratory conditions to spinetoram at different concentrations, starting from the maximum field recommended concentration (MFRC) and then different dilutions (1/10, 1/100, 1/1000 and 1/10 000 of the MFRC), and compared with spinosad. In addition, the side effects via oral exposure in supplemented sugar water were assessed.RESULTS: Direct contact of B. terrestris workers with wet residues of spinosad and spinetoram showed spinetoram to be approximately 52 times less toxic than spinosad, while exposure to dry residues of spinetoram was about 8 times less toxic than exposure to those of spinosad. Oral treatment for 72 h (acute) indicated that spinetoram is about 4 times less toxic to B. terrestris workers compared with spinosad, while exposure for a longer period (i.e. 11 weeks) showed spinetoram to be 24 times less toxic. In addition, oral exposure to the two spinosyns resulted in detrimental sublethal effects on bumblebee reproduction. The no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for spinosad was 1/1000 of the MFRC, and 1/100 of the MFRC for spinetoram. Comparison between the chronic exposure bioassays assessing the sublethal effects on nest reproduction, with and without allowing for foraging behaviour, showed that the respective NOEC values for spinosad and spinetoram were similar over the two bioassays, indicating that there were no adverse effects by either spinosyn on the foraging of B. terrestris workers.CONCLUSION: Overall, the present results indicate that the use of spinetoram is safer for bumblebees by direct contact and oral exposure than the use of spinosad, and therefore it can be applied safely in combination with B. terrestris. Another important conclusion is that the present data provide strong evidence that neither spinosyn has a negative effect on the foraging behaviour of these beneficial insects. However, before drawing final conclusions, spinetoram and spinosad should also be evaluated in more realistic field-related situations for the assessment of potentially deleterious effects on foraging behaviour with the use of queenright colonies of B. terrestris. (C) 2011 Society of Chemical Industry