Cyantraniliprole: Pollinator profile of the novel insecticides under laboratory, semi-field and field conditions

Background: The pollinator profile of cyantraniliprole, a systemic anthranilic diamide insecticide, with foliar or soil applications between 12.5 to 150 g a.s./ha, was investigated. Results: Cyantraniliprole - tested up to maximum water solubility level – caused no increased acute oral or contact honeybee mortality. The lowest LD50 values for formulated cyantraniliprole were 0.39 (oral) and 0.63 (contact) μg cyantraniliprole/ honeybee, respectively. The oral toxicity of 4 plant metabolites was maximally similar to cyantraniliprole or no oral toxicity was determined up to maximal water solubility level. Cyantraniliprole spray deposits at 150 g a.s./ha and aged for ≥ 3 hours pose low risk for honeybees. Cyantraniliprole use may results in residues in pollen and nectar, but oral honeybee risk assessments indicate low risk for honeybees via oral exposure. In semi-field and field honeybee tests low risk for honeybees was confirmed. Tomato greenhouse study results demonstrate that there is an excellent fit between the use of bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) for pollination and cyantraniliprole – applied either via spray or drip irrigation. Conclusion: Based on a comprehensive data package it was found that the intended uses of DuPont cyantraniliprole formulations pose low risk for pollinators

Recent experiences with bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) semi-field tunnel testing following ICPPR Non-Apis 2016 and 2017 workshop recommendations to investigate the insecticide chlorantraniliprole

The study investigated the potential impact of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole (Coragen® brand) on the bumble bee (Bombus terrestris L.) under semi-field conditions in Phacelia tanacetifolia in Germany based on ringtest protocols from the ICPPR Non-Apis workshops (2016 and 2017). The P. tanacetifolia crop was grown in soil treated with the predicted 20-year plateau concentration of chlorantraniliprole in the top 20 cm of soil (equivalent to a predicted 20-year plateau concentration of 0.088 mg a.s./kg). Additionally, two chlorantraniliprole applications at 60 g a.s./ha were made in the chlorantraniliprole treatments (T1 and T2). In T1 both applications took place before P. tanacetifolia flowering at BBCH 51-55 and BBCH 55-59. In T2 one application was conducted before P. tanacetifolia flowering at BBCH 55-59 and one application during P. tanacetifolia flowering and during daily bee flight at BBCH 61-62. The application in the control (C) and reference item treatment (R) (400 g dimethoate a.s./ha) was carried out during full P. tanacetifolia flowering and bumble bee flight. The bumble bee colonies were exposed to the treated flowering P. tanacetifolia crop for 20 days in the tunnels and afterwards the colonies were kept on a monitoring site. The results of this study indicate no significant differences between the chlorantraniliprole treatment groups T1 and T2 and the control regarding all parameters assessed (i.e. mortality in the colonies and in the tunnels, flight activity at the hive entrance, hive weight development, condition of the colonies and production of young queens and males). Overall, no effects of chlorantraniliprole on bumble bee B. terrestris colonies including queen/male production, adult and larval survival and forager flight activity were found.The study investigated the potential impact of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole (Coragen® brand) on the bumble bee (Bombus terrestris L.) under semi-field conditions in Phacelia tanacetifolia in Germany based on ringtest protocols from the ICPPR Non-Apis workshops (2016 and 2017). The P. tanacetifolia crop was grown in soil treated with the predicted 20-year plateau concentration of chlorantraniliprole in the top 20 cm of soil (equivalent to a predicted 20-year plateau concentration of 0.088 mg a.s./kg). Additionally, two chlorantraniliprole applications at 60 g a.s./ha were made in the chlorantraniliprole treatments (T1 and T2). In T1 both applications took place before P. tanacetifolia flowering at BBCH 51-55 and BBCH 55-59. In T2 one application was conducted before P. tanacetifolia flowering at BBCH 55-59 and one application during P. tanacetifolia flowering and during daily bee flight at BBCH 61-62. The application in the control (C) and reference item treatment (R) (400 g dimethoate a.s./ha) was carried out during full P. tanacetifolia flowering and bumble bee flight. The bumble bee colonies were exposed to the treated flowering P. tanacetifolia crop for 20 days in the tunnels and afterwards the colonies were kept on a monitoring site. The results of this study indicate no significant differences between the chlorantraniliprole treatment groups T1 and T2 and the control regarding all parameters assessed (i.e. mortality in the colonies and in the tunnels, flight activity at the hive entrance, hive weight development, condition of the colonies and production of young queens and males). Overall, no effects of chlorantraniliprole on bumble bee B. terrestris colonies including queen/male production, adult and larval survival and forager flight activity were found

Chlorantraniliprole: Lack of effects on bumblebee reproduction (Bombus terrestris) under semi-field conditions in Phacelia tanacetifolia

Background: In a semi-field trial the effect of chlorantraniliprole spray application on Phacelia tanacetifolia on the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae), was studied. Results: Chlorantraniliprole applied twice at 60 g a.s./ha as a spray application on flowering Phacelia with a 9-day spray interval during daily bumblebee flight did not have any pertinent effects regarding all parameters assessed, i.e. mortality, flight activity, hive weight, condition of colonies, development of bumblebee brood, production of young queen offspring and vigor relative to the water treated control. Similar numbers of young queens and drones were determined in the chlorantraniliprole and control treatments. No residues above the level of quantification (LOQ) of 0.001 mg/kg were found in any of the control samples in pollen or nectar. Residues of chlorantraniliprole above the LOQ level were found for all matrices after application in the chlorantraniliprole treatment. Residues in pollen samples were generally higher compared to the nectar samples, while chlorantraniliprole residue levels declined rapidly in both matrices after each spray application.Conclusion: In a semi-field trial no effects of chlorantraniliprole applied twice at 60 g a.s./ha on the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, including reproduction was found.Keywords: chlorantraniliprole, insecticide, side-effects, bumblebee, Bombus terrestri

A monitoring study confirming the safe use of DuPont Steward insecticide (a.s. indoxacarb) for natural bumblebee populations in flowering apple orchards and recommendations for the use of commercial bumble bee hives in flowering apple and pear orchards tr

contribution to session II Bumblebees and other bee specie

Chlorantraniliprole (Rynaxypyr): A novel DuPont™ insecticide with low toxicity and low risk for honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) providing excellent tools for uses in integrated pest management

contribution to session IVTest methodology Background: The effects on bees of chlorantraniliprole (DPX-E2Y45, DuPont™ Rynaxypyr), a new anthranilic diamide insecticide with a novel and very specific mode of action activating insect ryanodine receptors were investigated.Results: Acute toxicity tests with chlorantraniliprole and the formulations, Coragen and Altacor, demonstrated low intrinsic toxicity to honey bees. Low risk for honey bees was demonstrated in semi-field tunnel tests with flowering Phacelia or wheat (with daily sprays of sugar solution to simulate honey dew) at application rates of Coragen of up to 60 g chlorantraniliprole/ha. Low potential of systemic exposure via pollen and nectar of honeybees to chlorantraniliprole was documented in a residue Phacelia tunnel trial with chlorantraniliprole applied to and mixed into bare soil. The impact of Altacor on bumble bees was studied in a greenhouse test in tomato at 40 g chlorantraniliprole/ha. Bumble bees directly over-sprayed during foraging activity with chlorantraniliprole or exposed to treated plants behaved as controls. Conclusion: Chlorantraniliprole formulations provide excellent tools for integrated pest management (IPM) programmes to conserve pollinating honey bees and bumble bees. Keywords: Chlorantraniliprole, Rynaxypyr®, insecticide, side-effects, honey bee, bumble bee, integrated pest management (IPM

1.21 Improving pesticide regulation by use of impact analyses: A case study for bees

When changes to regulatory guidance for risk assessment are proposed it is necessary to undertake an impact analysis to assess whether they bring the desired improvement to a risk assessment and reliability of the outcomes to inform decision making. In particular impact analyses should estimate the chances of getting both false negative (concluding low risk where more research is needed) and false positive outcomes (concluding high risks where the product is of low risk). Such analyses are also used to inform on future product development costs and workload for regulatory authorities. In this paper, we present the findings from an impact analysis conducted on the proposed EFSA bee guidance document (2013) and discuss whether the proposed guidance would provide for a cost effective and tiered approach toward the protection of bees due to the potential risks posed by the use of plant protection products. Following on from this a second impact assessment is presented based on new data generated by ECPA member companies regarding the assessment of chronic risk to bees. Critical areas are discussed and suggestions for the improvement of assess the risk assessment for plant protection products (PPP) to bees are presented.When changes to regulatory guidance for risk assessment are proposed it is necessary to undertake an impact analysis to assess whether they bring the desired improvement to a risk assessment and reliability of the outcomes to inform decision making. In particular impact analyses should estimate the chances of getting both false negative (concluding low risk where more research is needed) and false positive outcomes (concluding high risks where the product is of low risk). Such analyses are also used to inform on future product development costs and workload for regulatory authorities. In this paper, we present the findings from an impact analysis conducted on the proposed EFSA bee guidance document (2013) and discuss whether the proposed guidance would provide for a cost effective and tiered approach toward the protection of bees due to the potential risks posed by the use of plant protection products. Following on from this a second impact assessment is presented based on new data generated by ECPA member companies regarding the assessment of chronic risk to bees. Critical areas are discussed and suggestions for the improvement of assess the risk assessment for plant protection products (PPP) to bees are presented