Next Article in Journal
Cultivation Systems, Light Intensity, and Their Influence on Yield and Fruit Quality Parameters of Tomatoes
Previous Article in Journal
Rapid Detection and Counting of Wheat Ears in the Field Using YOLOv4 with Attention Module
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy11061200
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Temporal Profile of Neonicotinoid Concentrations in Cotton, Corn, and Soybean Resulting from Insecticidal Seed Treatments

by
Adam Whalen
1,
Angus L. Catchot, Jr.
1,*,
Jeff Gore
2,
Scott D. Stewart
3,
Gus M. Lorenz
4,
Donald R. Cook
2,
Fred R. Musser
1,
Jeffrey W. Harris
1 and
Natraj Krishnan
1
1
Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology, and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 39762, USA
2
Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology, and Plant Pathology, Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA
3
Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology, and Nematology, The University of Tennessee, Jackson, TN 38301, USA
4
Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(6), 1200; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061200
Submission received: 20 April 2021 / Revised: 8 June 2021 / Accepted: 9 June 2021 / Published: 12 June 2021
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Neonicotinoids have been implicated as a contributing factor to the observed decreases in honey bee populations. It has been suggested that honey bees can be exposed to seed-treated neonicotinoids through pollen and nectar from treated plants. To investigate the uptake and persistence of neonicotinoids in plant tissue and soil, we conducted seed treatment trials with corn, cotton, and soybean planted in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee during the 2013 and 2014 growing seasons. Leaf tissue was collected and analyzed beginning shortly after emergence until plants began to flower to better understand how neonicotinoid concentrations change in plant tissues over time. The youngest leaf in the terminal of the plant was sampled as an indicator of the neonicotinoid concentrations within the plant. Soil samples were also collected and analyzed for neonicotinoid concentrations at the first and last sampling dates. The mean clothianidin concentrations in corn treated with Poncho® 250, 500, and 1250 seed treatments declined by 99.3, 99.3, and 97.8 percent, respectively, as the plants developed from seedlings to reproductive plants. The mean concentration of imidacloprid detected in Aeris®-treated cotton decreased by 99.6 percent during the sampling period. For cotton seed treated with Avicta® Duo, the mean concentrations of thiamethoxam and clothianidin in leaf tissue declined by 99.9 and 100 percent, respectively, by the time flowering occurred. There was a 99.9 percent reduction in the mean concentration of thiamethoxam by the time of flowering in leaf tissue from soybean treated with a CruiserMaxx® seed treatment. Mean clothianidin concentrations completely diminished (<1 ng/g) in CruiserMaxx®- and Poncho®/VOTiVO®-treated soybean plants by the time plants reached reproductive growth. The data for neonicotinoid concentrations in the soil were more variable than leaf tissue samples, and the reduction in neonicotinoid concentrations in leaf tissues did not closely correlate with concentrations in the soil. Our results suggest that neonicotinoid insecticides, when used as seed treatments in these crops, decline rapidly throughout vegetative growth stages. However, the biological impact on target or non-target arthropods was not examined.

1. Introduction

The neonicotinoids are a widely employed class of insecticides used in row crop agriculture to protect against a broad range of economically important pests including piercing and sucking insects as well as some below-ground coleopteran and lepidopteran pest species [1]. Since the introduction of the first neonicotinoid insecticide in 1991 [1], usage of this insecticide class has dramatically increased across the United States [2]. This class of chemicals has been rapidly adopted because of several key attributes including their systemic nature and persistence, ease of application, low mammalian toxicity, and efficacy against target pests resistant to other insecticide classes [3]. In the United States, one of the primary uses of neonicotinoids in agriculture is as a seed treatment that is fixed to the outer coating of crop seed prior to planting [3]. This prophylactic approach serves more as a preventative treatment for potential pest problems rather than a traditional integrated pest management tactic [2]. Neonicotinoid seed treatments are one of the few control options available to prevent yield and economic losses from many early-season pests [4].
Almost all corn seed planted in the United States are currently treated with a neonicotinoid seed treatment before planting to protect corn seedlings from many below-ground and early-season pests [5,6]. For most of the corn in the United States, neonicotinoids provide protection against wireworms and corn rootworm species [6]. These pests feed on the primary and secondary roots, which can lead to instability and lodging of the affected corn plants [7]. Most cotton seed are commonly treated with neonicotinoids for protection against thrips and below-ground pests that attack the roots [8]. Thrips have the most impact on cotton plants from emergence until the four to five true-leaf stage [9]. Many soybean growers treat seed with neonicotinoids to prevent stand loss and replanting caused by early-season insect pests [10]. In Midsouthern U.S. corn, cotton and soybean production systems, neonicotinoid seed treatments provide yield and economic increases when compared to untreated seed in experimental trials [6,8,10].
The killing efficiency and widespread use of these products as well as the systemic nature and persistence of insecticidal activity have led to concerns of potential impacts on non-target arthropods [3]. Neonicotinoid seed treatments have been implicated as a potential contributor to recent honey bee, Apis mellifera (L.), colony losses [11]. Feeding experiments when colonies are continuously fed sub-lethal doses of neonicotinoids have resulted in adverse effects to honey bee behaviors essential to foraging success [12,13,14], although some consider that the continuous feeding of sub-lethal doses does not accurately represent field scenarios [11]. Honey bees of the same colony forage on different floral sources simultaneously [15], most of which are not likely contaminated with neonicotinoids, thus diluting the levels of neonicotinoids within the stored food of a colony [15]. Nectar and honey entering the hive undergo further processing, storage, and exposure conditions [16] that can cause rapid degradation of neonicotinoid compounds within the stored food [15]. Regardless of opinions on exposure level, the evidence is clear that honey bees do come into contact with neonicotinoid compounds. Neonicotinoid compounds have been detected in honey bee hive wax and collected pollen [17,18,19].
Honey bees can be exposed to neonicotinoid seed treatment compounds through multiple routes. Contaminated pollen and nectar can be collected from multiple treated crops as well as from neighboring flowering vegetation near treated fields. Wildflowers near field borders can test positive for neonicotinoids as a result of drifting seed treatment particles in the exhaust that exits vacuum-driven planters [4,17]. Flowering vegetation may absorb neonicotinoids from soil in fields planted with neonicotinoid dressed seeds [4,17,20,21], but some of these soil-bound compounds potentially may not be available for plant uptake [21]. Floral structures of treated crops make for a logical source of neonicotinoid interactions with foraging honey bees.
Neonicotinoid compounds have been detected in corn pollen from plants treated with neonicotinoid seed treatments [4,17,21,22]. During anthesis, the pollen, and stems/leaves of corn plants treated with an imidacloprid seed treatment contained average imidacloprid concentrations of 2.1 and 4.1 ng/g, respectively [22]. Pollen from corn plants seed treated with the highest labeled rate of clothianidin contained average clothianidin concentrations of 3.9 ng/g and thiamethoxam concentrations of 1.7 ng/g [17]. Corn pollen from plants treated with clothianidin seed treatments of 0.25 and 1.25 mg per seed contained concentrations of clothianidin of 3 and 6 ng/g, respectively [4].
Cotton and soybean nectar and pollen have also been evaluated for neonicotinoid concentrations. Cotton pollen and nectar from imidacloprid seed-treated plants and soybean flowers from thiamethoxam seed-treated plants were tested and found to contain little to no neonicotinoid concentrations [4]. To better understand how initial neonicotinoid concentrations from seed treatments diminish between planting and reproductive growth, multiple experiments were conducted in the Midsouthern United States in corn, cotton, and soybean.

2. Materials and Methods

Multiple experiments were conducted at agricultural research stations in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee during the growing seasons of 2013 and 2014. Corn, cotton, and soybean seed were treated with neonicotinoid insecticides. For each crop, plots of selected insecticide seed treatments were established in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. Row spacing varied from 0.76 to 1.02 m depending upon the crop and the location. Plots were four rows wide and 10–12 m in length. No additional neonicotinoids were applied to the crops during the sampling period. Leaf tissue was collected throughout the vegetative development of each crop until they reached reproductive growth stages (i.e., anthesis). The leaf tissue collected from each crop was the newest tissue on the plant, likely indicating at what concentrations neonicotinoid compounds were being translocated into new plant growth over time. The newest plant tissue was selected to measure the amount of insecticide moving into the plants between sample timings. If older tissue had been sampled, there would be a risk of measuring the accumulation of insecticides over time. Samples were analyzed to determine the concentration of neonicotinoid insecticides.
Corn experiments consisted of Dekalb® Genuity® 64–69 VT Triple Pro® (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA) seed either not treated or treated with Poncho® 250, Poncho® 500, or Poncho® 1250 (clothianidin 0.25, 0.5, or 1.25 mg/seed, respectively, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA). Samples were collected at growth stages V1 (first leaf), V3, V5, V7, V10, and VT (tassel). For each vegetative growth stage, the number represents how many leaf collars were visible on the corn stalk. At the VT growth stage, the corn plant reached maximum height and the last branch of the tassel emerged from the top of the plant [23]. For the V1 and V3 growth stages, sampling consisted of collecting 20 whole random plants within the plot. For the V5 and V7 growth stages, the uppermost fully expanded leaf was collected from 20 random plants within the plot. The uppermost fully expanded leaf was collected from 10 random plants for the V10 and VT growth stages. Corn plants at all locations reached the growth stages of V1, V3, and VT at approximately 5, 17, and 98 days after emergence, respectively.
For cotton experiments, Phytogen® 375 WRF (Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA) was planted at all locations. Cotton treatments consisted of an untreated control, Avicta® Duo (thiamethoxam 0.34 mg/seed, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC, USA), and Aeris® (imidacloprid 0.375 mg/seed, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA). Cotton leaves were sampled at the 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 true-leaf stages, and a final sample was collected at first flower (bloom). For the first and third true-leaf stage, the uppermost fully expanded leaf was taken from 20 random plants per plot. For all other growth stages, the uppermost fully expanded leaf was collected from 10 random plants per plot. For all locations, cotton vegetative growth stages ranged from 15 to 35 days after emergence. First bloom was approximately 65 days after emergence.
For the soybean experiments, Asgrow® 4606 (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA) soybean seed were treated with Cruiser Maxx® Soybean (thiamethoxam 0.0778 mg/seed, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC, USA) and Poncho®/VOTiVO® (clothianidin 0.13 mg/seed, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA). Untreated soybean seed was also planted to serve as a control. Soybean samples were collected at growth stages VC (cotyledon), V2, V4, V6, and R1 (early flowering) [24]. For the VC growth stage, 25 random whole plants were sampled from each plot. The uppermost fully expanded trifoliate was collected from 25 random plants per plot for the remaining growth stages. For all locations, soybean vegetative growth stages ranged from 14 to 28 days after emergence. The R1 growth stage occurred at approximately 65 days after emergence. Additional planting information for corn, cotton, and soybean trials are available as Supporting Information.
All tissue samples were collected from the center two rows of each plot. Samples were placed in 3.8 L Ziploc® bags. New gloves were worn during the sampling of each plot to eliminate potential contamination. The sample bags were immediately placed in a cooler containing blue ice. Samples were transferred into a storage unit kept at −10 °C within 30 min of sampling and kept there until shipping for chemical analysis.
Soils samples were taken at the first and last sampling dates for each crop at each location. A soil probe (e.g., JMC 36” soil sampler, Clements Associates Inc., Newton, IA, USA) was driven 10 cm into the soil within the furrow where seeds were sown at 5 randomly selected spots within the center two rows of each plot. All 5 subsamples from each plot were placed in the same 3.8 L Ziploc® bag and thoroughly mixed. For each sample, three grams of the mixed soil were analyzed to determine concentrations of neonicotinoid insecticides.
All plant and soil samples were sent to the USDA AMS Science and Technology Laboratory Approval and Testing Division of the National Science Laboratory in Gastonia, NC to determine the levels of neonicotinoid insecticides in the plant tissue and soils. The plant tissues and soil samples were extracted for analysis of agrochemicals using a refined methodology for the determination of neonicotinoid pesticides using the official pesticide extraction method (AOAC 2007.01), also known as the QuEChERS method, and analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS) [4,25,26,27,28]. Quantification was performed using external calibration standards prepared from certified standard reference material. Output was the concentrations of the neonicotinoid insecticides. The method detection limit was one part per billion (1 ng/g) for all parent compounds (Table A1). Non-detects were recorded as zero for calculating averages.
For plant tissue and for soil collected at each growth stage, analysis of variance was performed for neonicotinoid concentration for each treatment across all locations using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS (SAS Institute, version 9.3). Data were log transformed prior to analysis. The percent of positive detections was also determined for each treatment. Growth stage was considered a fixed effect in the model, and replication and location were designated as random effects. Degrees of freedom were calculated using the Kenward–Roger method. Means were calculated using the LSMEANS statement and separated based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference (α = 0.05).

3. Results

For corn, concentrations of neonicotinoid insecticides decreased sharply in leaf tissue as the plants grew. Concentrations of clothianidin in the Poncho® 250-treated plots varied among the different growth stages (F = 27.0; df = 5, 50; p < 0.01) (Table 1). Differences were also observed in the mean concentration of clothianidin detected at each growth stage for Poncho® 500- (F = 25.5; df = 5, 50; p < 0.01) and Poncho 1250®-treated plots (F = 21.5; df = 5, 50; p < 0.01) (Table 1).
Concentrations of clothianidin in corn leaf tissue from seed-treated corn dramatically decreased from the initial concentrations detected to what was detected at the VT growth stage. At the final sampling period, clothianidin was detected in 50 percent of the leaf tissue samples collected from the Poncho® 250-treated corn plants. These samples contained a mean concentration of clothianidin of 12 ± 4.7 ng/g which was 99.3 percent less than the concentration of clothianidin initially detected at V1. Tissue from Poncho® 500-treated soybean seed contained 23 ± 9.8 ng/g at the VT growth stage. There was a 99.3 percent decrease in the concentration of clothianidin that was initially detected at V1. Of the samples collected at VT from Poncho® 500-treated corn plants, 50 percent contained detectable levels of clothianidin. For leaf tissue from corn seed treated with Poncho® 1250, there was a 97.8 percent reduction in the concentration of clothianidin that was initially detected at V1. All tissue sampled at the VT growth stage from Poncho® 1250-treated corn tested positive for clothianidin, and the mean concentration of clothianidin detected was 71 ± 22.3 ng/g.
Cotton leaves from Aeris®-treated seed exhibited a substantial reduction in imidacloprid concentration as the plants grew larger (F = 40.4; df = 5, 82; p < 0.01) (Table 2). A similar reduction was also in the mean concentrations of thiamethoxam and clothianidin for plants treated with an Avicta® Duo seed treatment (F = 33.2; df = 5, 58; p < 0.01) (Table 2). It is important to note that clothianidin is a primary metabolite of thiamethoxam [29].
Concentrations of neonicotinoids in cotton leaf tissue dramatically decreased (fell to 2.1 ng/g or less) before the cotton plants began to flower. Leaf tissue collected from Aeris®-treated plots contained 1.32 ± 0.5 ng/g of imidacloprid at the final sampling stage, which was 99.7 percent less than the concentration of imidacloprid detected at first true leaf. At first flower, 38 percent of the samples from Aeris®-treated plants contained imidacloprid. When Avicta® Duo-treated cotton reached first flower, leaf tissue contained a mean concentration of thiamethoxam of 2.1 ± 1.1 ng/g. There was a 99.9 percent reduction in the concentration of thiamethoxam and 100 percent reduction in the concentration of clothianidin that was initially detected at first true leaf. At the last sampled stage, 33 percent of the samples from Avicta® Duo-treated cotton tested positive for thiamethoxam.
Soybean leaves from CruiserMaxx®-treated seed also showed a large and rapid reduction in thiamethoxam and clothianidin concentrations as the plants grew (F = 28.1; df = 4, 43; p < 0.01 and F = 29.0; df = 4, 43; p < 0.01, respectively) (Table 3). Significant differences were also observed in the mean concentration of clothianidin detected at each growth stage for soybean grown from Poncho®/VOTiVO®-treated seed (F = 21.3; df = 4, 42; p < 0.01) (Table 3). Clothianidin was not detected in soybean leaf tissue treated for either neonicotinoid seed treatment by the time flowering occurred. Low levels of thiamethoxam persisted in tissue from the CruiserMaxx®-treated plants. Leaf tissue collected from CruiserMaxx®-treated soybean seed contained 2.2 ± 0.8 ng/g of thiamethoxam at the final sampling stage which was 99.9 percent less than the concentration of thiamethoxam detected at VC. One-half of CruiserMaxx®-treated soybean samples tested positive for thiamethoxam at the R1 growth stage.
Percent detections of the three neonicotinoids in soil from the three cropping systems varied greatly and were sporadic. Soil from untreated plots of all crops had some positive detections for all three neonicotinoids, creating background noise for the treatments (Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). Imidacloprid was more frequently detected in untreated plots than clothianidin or thiamethoxam. Clothianidin was detected in soil from all treated corn plots at the V1 growth stage and was also detected in Poncho® 500- and Poncho® 1250-treated plots at the VT growth stage (Table 4). The corresponding neonicotinoid was detected in some soil samples from Aeris®- and Avicta® Duo-treated plots at the first true leaf stage and at similar frequencies at the first flower growth stage (Table 5). As in corn and cotton, the corresponding neonicotinoid was detected in most soil samples from CruiserMaxx® and Poncho®/VOTiVO® soybean treatments at both the VC and R1 growth stages (Table 6).
Neonicotinoids were not only detected in the soil of untreated plots, but they were also detected at low levels in the plant tissue of untreated corn (Table A2), cotton (Table A3), and soybean (Table A4) plots. Similarly, there were detections of neonicotinoid compounds in plant tissue that were different from the seed treatment in that plot. These detections may have been from plant uptake of residual neonicotinoids in the soil, or probably more likely reflect contamination during the treating, seed sorting, and the planting process.

4. Discussion

Neonicotinoid compounds are widely used as seed treatments on agronomic crops to provide control against many insect pests [1]. In the Midsouthern region of the United States, neonicotinoid seed treatments are commonly applied to corn, cotton, and soybean seed before planting [4,6,8,10]. These seed treatments are one of the few control options for early-season pests in these crops [4,6,8,10]. The systemic nature and persistence of these products continue to raise concerns about potential impacts on pollinators such as honey bees.
The goal of this research was to understand the change in neonicotinoid concentrations in plant tissue over time when neonicotinoid seed treatments were used in corn, cotton, and soybean plants and to compare these concentrations with published detections of concentrations in pollen and nectar from seed-treated crops. In all trials, neonicotinoid concentrations in leaf tissue had decreased dramatically by the time plants began flowering. Pollen and nectar data from previous studies show drastic reductions in neonicotinoid concentrations when compared to the concentrations derived from seed treatments in newly emerged crop tissue [4,17].
Newly emerged corn tissue from plots treated with the highest rate of the clothianidin seed treatment contained a mean clothianidin concentration of 3277 ng/g. At VT, only a mean of 71 ng/g of clothianidin was found in new leaf tissue, representing a 97.8 percent reduction in the initial concentration in the plant. The findings of 3.9 and 6.0 ng/g of clothianidin in pollen samples from Poncho® 250- and Poncho® 1250-treated corn [4] would indicate over a 99.7 percent reduction compared with what we detected at V1.
In the Midsouthern U. S., the lower labeled rates of Poncho® seed treatment (0.25 mg and 0.5 mg of ai/kernel) are more commonly applied to corn than the higher rate [30], and this would limit some exposure of pollinators to higher levels of clothianidin in pollen. Additionally, compared with many other crops, corn flowering occurs over a short period, lasting a maximum of two weeks within a field [31] during the R1 growth stage when pollen is shedding [23]. This short collection window for honey bees, the regional preference for lower rates of the Poncho® seed treatment, and the reduction in clothianidin concentrations within developing corn plants demonstrated in our research suggest that corn plants treated with Poncho® in the Midsouthern U.S. potentially pose a reduced risk of neonicotinoid exposure to foraging honey bees.
Leaf samples from cotton or soybean treated with neonicotinoid seed treatments also contained very low concentrations of neonicotinoids at the flowering stage compared with concentrations in recently emerged seedlings. Soybean nectar is considered to be of high quality and actively foraged on by honey bees [32], and Alburaki et al. [33] showed that honey bees also collect soybean pollen. For this reason, soybean fields are actively sought by commercial beekeepers in some areas of the Midsouth. The concentrations we detected in leaf tissues at flowering were low enough to suggest that, similar to the findings of Stewart et al. [4], little or no neonicotinoid residues would be found in cotton or soybean pollen and nectar. It appears neonicotinoid residues stemming from seed treatments are no longer present within soybean plants when they become attractive to foraging honey bees. This is also supported by the results of Camargo et al. [34]. These results do not rule out the possibility of higher concentrations of neonicotinoids being present in extra-floral nectar of cotton during the early growth stages of cotton. The results of the current experiment contradict those of Jiang et al. [35] where a high percentage of samples contained low levels of thiamethoxam and imidacloprid following the use of those insecticides as seed treatments. During bloom, honey bees do not readily collect cotton pollen because of the size and shape of the pollen grain [33,36,37]. However, honey bees will collect nectar from cotton plants but have a strong preference for floral nectaries over extra-floral nectaries [38].
We found that neonicotinoid concentrations in the soil of plots having a seed treatment were sometimes higher than those in leaf tissues at the time of flowing. This was also observed by Stewart et al. [4]. This might result from a dilution of relatively low soil insecticide concentrations within rapidly growing plants. However, neonicotinoids present in soil during the reproductive stages of crops may not be available for uptake into the plant. Concentrations of clothianidin found in soil from seed-treated corn fields in the Midwestern United States were found to have limited plant bio-availability [21]. This was most likely due to time-dependent sorption, in which the pesticide residues became strongly bound to the soil matrix over time [21]. Soil-bound clothianidin concentrations were also found to not significantly increase or accumulate after four years of repetitive use of clothianidin seed treatments in corn production fields [21]. After 3 to 4 years of continued annual seed treatment use in corn fields, neonicotinoid residues plateau to mean concentrations of less than 6 ng/g [20]. These factors likely limit the exposure of foraging pollinators via neonicotinoid compounds in the soil of agricultural production.
These data help define the potential concentrations of neonicotinoid insecticides available in flowering crops stemming from insecticide seed treatments. They do not quantify exposure and toxicity, which are highly dependent on the attractiveness and willingness of honey bees to forage in these crops. It appears that in corn, cotton, and soybean seed treated with neonicotinoid insecticides, corn treated with high rates of clothianidin has the most potential to expose foraging honey bees to neonicotinoids through contaminated pollen. However, the concentrations available in pollen, as reported by others [4,17], do not appear sufficient to have measurable impacts on honey bees, especially if other floral resources were available. Similar conclusions have been made on similarly tested concentrations of imidacloprid in corn pollen [15]. Little to no measurable effects were found on honey bee colony health after colonies were fed pollen containing 5 ng/g of imidacloprid over a twelve-week period [15]. In another study, neonicotinoid-contaminated pollen resulted in mortality of worker bees that resulted in a temporary decline in population growth, but long term adverse effects were not detected. [39].
It appears that under the environmental conditions routinely encountered in the Midsouthern U.S. agroecosytems, the concentrations of neonicotinoids in corn, cotton, and soybean plants resulting from insecticide seed treatments are greatly reduced from early vegetative levels but impacts of concentrations measured in reproductive tissues were not examined against target or non-target arthropods. Our data are similar to those from Alford and Krupke [40] suggesting that the value of neonicotinoid seed treatments in controlling pests is short lived. However, the benefits of treatment to the crop often persist longer because of more vigorous seedling growth in the absence of pests that were controlled by the neonicotinoid seed treatment [6,8,10]. Thus, infestation of even susceptible pests that occur beyond the first few weeks may not be effectively controlled.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W., A.L.C.J., D.R.C., F.R.M., J.W.H. and N.K.; funding acquisition, A.L.C.J., D.R.C., S.D.S. and G.M.L.; data curation, A.W.; formal analysis, A.W., J.G. and F.R.M.; investigation, A.W., A.L.C.J., D.R.C., S.D.S. and G.M.L.; project administration, A.W., A.L.C.J. and J.G.; supervision, A.W., A.L.C.J. and J.G.; writing—original draft, A.W.; writing—review and editing, A.W., A.L.C.J., S.D.S., G.M.L., D.R.C., F.R.M., J.W.H. and N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Mississippi Soybean Promotion Board, grant number 59-2013; Mississippi Corn Promotion Board, grant number 2013-21; USDA-ARS, grant numbers 58-6404-3-008, A14-0377-004, A14-0377-002 and 58-6404-3-007; Tennessee Soybean Promotion Council, grant numbers A13-0638-001, A14-0638-001 and A13-0645-001; Cotton Incorporated, grant numbers A13-0818-002, A14-0818-002, A13-0615-001, A14-0615-001, 38443 and 28661; Arkansas Soybean Promotion Board, grant numbers 28081 and 38033.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the corn, cotton and soybean producers of Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee and USDA-ARS for funding the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Corn experiments were planted at the Mississippi State University R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center in Starkville, MS, the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, MS, USA and the University of Tennessee West Tennessee Research and Education Center in Jackson, TN, USA in the 2013 growing season. Upland cotton was planted at the University of Arkansas Lon Mann Cotton Research Station in Marianna, AR in 2013, the Mississippi State University R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center in Starkville, MS, USA and the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, MS, USA in 2014. In 2014, cotton treated with imidacloprid at a rate of 0.375 mg/seed was sampled at the University of Tennessee Research and Education Center in Milan, TN, USA. Soybean was planted in 2013 at the Mississippi State University R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center in Starkville, MS, USA, the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, MS, USA and the University of Arkansas Lon Mann Cotton Research Station in Marianna, AR, USA. Cotton tests were performed on a lighter textured silt loam soil. Corn and soybean trials were performed on a range of soil types ranging from silt loam to Sharkey clay.
Table
Table A1. The pesticide residues and analytical levels of detection (LOD) that were screened for during analyses.
Table A1. The pesticide residues and analytical levels of detection (LOD) that were screened for during analyses.
Pesticide ResidueLOD (ng/g)
Acetamiprid2.0
Clothianidin1.0
Dinotefuran2.0
Flonicamid8.0
Imidacloprid1.0
Thiacloprid1.0
Thiamethoxam1.0
Table
Table A2. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection detected in corn leaf tissue from untreated plots at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Table A2. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection detected in corn leaf tissue from untreated plots at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Growth StageClothianidinImidaclopridThiamethoxam
Mean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
V164.6 (19.2)100%1.6 (0.8)33%60.5 (16.6)100%
V311.6 (4.2)75%1.8 (1.1)50%13.5 (2.1)100%
V51.1 (1.1)8%0.9 (0.5)25%9.5 (3.6)100%
V72.7 (1.3)50%0.0 (0.0)0%0.0 (0.0)0%
V100.6 (0.4)17%0.0 (0.0)0%0.4 (0.3)17%
VT0.0 (0.0)0%0.0 (0.0)0%0.0 (0.0)0%
Table
Table A3. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection detected in cotton leaf tissue from untreated plots at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Table A3. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection detected in cotton leaf tissue from untreated plots at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Growth StageClothianidinImidaclopridThiamethoxam
Mean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
1st Leaf1.9 (1.9)8%4.3 (2.7)42%2.8 (1.6)33%
3 Leaf0.0 (0.0)0%4.4 (1.4)75%0.8 (0.8)13%
5 Leaf1.7 (0.9)25%1.7 (0.9)33%1.7 (1.2)17%
7 Leaf3.8 (3.8)13%0.8 (0.6)25%0.0 (0.0)0%
9 Leaf0.0 (0.0)0%0.0 (0.0)0%0.0 (0.0)0%
1st Flower0.0 (0.0)0%0.2 (0.2)8%0.0 (0.0)0%
Table
Table A4. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection detected in soybean leaf tissue from untreated plots at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Table A4. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection detected in soybean leaf tissue from untreated plots at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Growth StageClothianidinImidaclopridThiamethoxam
Mean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
VC0.0 (0.0)0%1.2 (0.2)88%0.0 (0.0)0%
V20.0 (0.0)0%0.1 (0.1)8%1.0 (0.6)33%
V40.0 (0.0)0%0.3 (0.3)13%0.0 (0.0)0%
V60.0 (0.0)0%0.7 (0.5)25%3.8 (2.9)25%
R10.0 (0.0)0%0.1 (0.1)8%0.4 (0.4)8%

References

  1. Maienfisch, P.; Angst, M.; Brandl, F.; Fischer, W.; Hofer, D.; Kayser, H.; Kobel, W.; Rindlisbacher, A.; Senn, R.; Steinemann, A. Chemistry and biology of thiamethoxam: A second generation neonicotinoid. Pest Manag. Sci. 2001, 57, 906–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Douglas, M.R.; Tooker, J.F. Large-scale deployment of seed treatments has driven rapid increase in use of neonicotinoid insec-ticides and preemptive pest management in US field crops. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 5088–5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Simon-Delso, N.; Amaralrogers, V.; Belzunces, L.P.; Bonmatin, J.M.; Chagnon, M.; Downs, C.; Furlan, L.; Gibbons, D.W.; Giorio, C.; Girolami, V.; et al. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): Trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 5–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stewart, S.D.; Lorenz, G.M.; Catchot, A.L.; Gore, J.; Cook, D.; Skinner, J.; Mueller, T.C.; Johnson, D.R.; Zawislak, J.; Barber, J. Potential exposure of pollinators to neonico-tinoid insecticides from the use of insecticide seed treatments in the mid-southern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 9762–9769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Haire, B. Are Seed Treatments Worth the Investment? Southeast Farm Press. Available online: http://southeastfarmpress.com/soybeans/are-seed-treatments-worth-investment (accessed on 9 January 2014).
  6. North, J.H.; Gore, J.; Catchot, A.L.; Stewart, S.D.; Lorenz, G.M.; Musser, F.R.; Cook, D.R.; Kerns, D.L.; Leonard, B.R.; Dodds, D.M. Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticide Seed Treatments in Mid-South Corn (Zea mays) Production Systems. J. Biochem. 2017, 111, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Higgins, R.A. Insect Management. In Corn Production Handbook. Extension Bulletin C-560; Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 1994; pp. 16–19. [Google Scholar]
  8. North, J.H.; Gore, J.; Catchot, A.L.; Stewart, S.D.; Lorenz, G.M.; Musser, F.R.; Cook, D.R.; Kerns, D.L.; Dodds, D.M. Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticide Seed Treatments in Mid-South Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum [Malvales: Malvaceae]) Production Systems. J. Econ. Èntomol. 2017, 111, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Cook, D.; Herbert, A.; Akin, D.S.; Reed, J. Biology, crop injury, and management of thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) infest-ing cotton seedlings in the United States. J. Integr. Pest Manag 2011, 2, B1–B9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. North, J.H.; Gore, J.; Catchot, A.L.; Stewart, S.D.; Lorenz, G.M.; Musser, F.R.; Cook, D.R.; Kerns, D.L.; Dodds, D.M. Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticide Seed Treatments in Mid-South Soybean (Glycine max) Production Systems. J. Econ. Èntomol. 2016, 109, 1156–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Lawrence, T.J.; Culbert, E.M.; Felsot, A.S.; Hebert, V.R.; Sheppard, W.S. Survey and risk assessment of Apis mellifera (Hyme-noptera: Apidae) exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides in urban, rural, and agricultural settings. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 520–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, E.C.; Chuang, Y.C.; Chen, Y.L.; Chang, L.H. Abnormal Foraging Behavior Induced by Sublethal Dosage of Imidacloprid in the Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Econ. Èntomol. 2008, 101, 1743–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Henry, M.; Béguin, M.; Requier, F.; Rollin, O.; Odoux, J.-F.; Aupinel, P.; Aptel, J.; Tchamitchian, S.; Decourtye, A. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Science 2012, 336, 348–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yang, E.-C.; Chang, H.-C.; Wu, W.-Y.; Chen, Y.-W. Impaired Olfactory Associative Behavior of Honeybee Workers Due to Contamination of Imidacloprid in the Larval Stage. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Dively, G.P.; Embrey, M.S.; Kamel, A.; Hawthorne, D.J.; Pettis, J.S. Assessment of chronic sublethal effects of imidacloprid on honey bee colony health. PLoS ONE 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gilliam, M.; Prest, D.B.; Lorenz, B.J. Microbiology of pollen and bee bread: Taxonomy and enzymology of molds. Apidologie 1989, 20, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Krupke, C.H.; Hunt, G.J.; Eitzer, B.D.; Andino, G.; Given, K. Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mullin, C.A.; Frazier, M.; Frazier, J.L.; Ashcraft, S.; Simonds, R.; Vanengelsdorp, D.; Pettis, J.S. High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Wu, J.Y.; Anelli, C.M.; Sheppard, W.S. Sub-Lethal Effects of Pesticide Residues in Brood Comb on Worker Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Development and Longevity. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e14720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Schaafsma, A.; Limay-Rios, V.; Xue, Y.; Smith, J.; Baute, T. Field-scale examination of neonicotinoid insecticide persistence in soil as a result of seed treatment use in commercial maize (corn) fields in southwestern Ontario. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 35, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, T.; Dyer, D.G.; McConnell, L.L.; Bondarenko, S.; Allen, R.; Heinemann, O. Clothianidin in agricultural soils and uptake into corn pollen and canola nectar after multiyear seed treatment applications. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 35, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bonmatin, J.M.; Marchand, P.A.; Charvet, R.; Moineau, I.; Bengsch, E.R.; Colin, M.E. Quantification of Imidacloprid Uptake in Maize Crops. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 5336–5341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ritchie, S.W.; Hanway, J.J.; Benson, G.O. How a Corn Plant Develops; Iowa State University of Science and Technology Cooperative Extension Service: Ames, IA, USA, 1989; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  24. Crow, W.; Catchot, A.; Gore, J.; Cook, D.; Layton, B.; Musser, F.; Pieralisi, B.; Larson, E.; Irby, T. Insect Control Guide for Agronomic Crops, Publication 2471; Mississippi State University Extension Service: Mississippi State, MS, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. DeGrandi-Hoffman, G.; Sammataro, D.; Simonds, R. Are agrochemicals present in High Fructose Corn Syrup fed to honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)? J. Apic. Res. 2012, 51, 371–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Kamel, A. Refined Methodology for the Determination of Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Their Metabolites in Honey Bees and Bee Products by Liquid Chromatography−Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 5926–5931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lehotay, S.J.; Kok, A.D.; Hiemstra, M.; Bodegraven, P.V. Validation of a fast and easy method for the determination of resi-dues from 229 pesticides in fruits and vegetables using gas and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometric detection. J. AOAC Int. 2005, 88, 595–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Zhang, K.; Wong, J.W.; Yang, P.; Tech, K.; DiBenedetto, A.L.; Lee, N.S.; Hayward, D.G.; Makovi, C.M.; Krynitsky, A.J.; Banerjee, K.; et al. Multiresidue Pesticide Analysis of Agricultural Commodities Using Acetonitrile Salt-Out Extraction, Dispersive Solid-Phase Sample Clean-Up, and High-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 7636–7646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nauen, R.; Ebbinghaus-Kintscher, U.; Salgado, V.L.; Kaussmann, M. Thiamethoxam is a neonicotinoid precursor converted to clothianidin in insects and plants. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2003, 76, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Catchot, A.L.; (Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA). Personal communication, 2013.
  31. Nielsen, R.L. Tassel emergence and pollen shed. Purdue University Agronomy Extension. 2016. Available online: https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/Tassels.html (accessed on 4 June 2017).
  32. Jaycox, E.R. Ecological relationships between honey bees and soybeans. II. The plant factors. Am. Bee J. 1970, 110, 343–345. [Google Scholar]
  33. Alburaki, M.; Gregorc, A.; Adamczyk, J.; Stewart, S.D. Insights on Pollen Diversity of Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Colonies Located in Various Agricultural Landscapes. Southwest. Nat. 2018, 63, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Camargo, C.; Snow, D.D.; Onanong, S.; Hunt, T.E.; Siegfried, B.D. Residues of thiamethoxam and mefenoxam in vegetative and floral tissue of soybean at the early reproductive stage resulting from seed treatments. Crop. Prot. 2019, 119, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiang, J.; Ma, D.; Zou, N.; Yu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, F.; Mu, W. Concentrations of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in pollen, nectar and leaves from seed-dressed cotton crops and their potential risk to honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Chemosphere 2018, 201, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vaissière, B.E.; Vinson, S.B. Pollen morphology and its effect on pollen collection by honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenop-tera: Apidae), with special reference to upland cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. (Malvaceae). Grana 1994, 33, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alburaki, M.; Steckel, S.; Williams, M.; Skinner, J.; Tarpy, D.; Meikle, W.; Adamczyk, J.; Stewart, S. Agricultural landscape and pesticide effects on honey bee biological traits. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 835–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eisikowitch, D.; Loper, G.M. Some Aspects of Flower Biology and Bee Activity on Hybrid Cotton in Arizona, USA. J. Apic. Res. 1984, 23, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lin, C.; Sponsler, D.B.; Richardson, R.T.; Watters, H.D.; Glinski, D.A.; Henderson, W.M.; Minucci, J.M.; Lee, E.H.; Purucker, S.T.; Johnson, R.M. Honey Bees and Neonicotinoid-Treated Corn Seed: Contamination, Exposure, and Effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2021, 40, 1212–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Alford, A.; Krupke, C.H. Translocation of the neonicotinoid seed treatment clothianidin in maize. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173836. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection of clothianidin detected in corn leaf tissue at each growth stage for each clothianidin seed treatment across all locations.
Table 1. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection of clothianidin detected in corn leaf tissue at each growth stage for each clothianidin seed treatment across all locations.
Growth Stage0.25 mg Clothianidin/Seed0.5 mg Clothianidin/Seed1.25 mg Clothianidin/Seed
Mean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
V11625 (451) a100%3120 (1022) a100%3277 (762) a100%
V3650 (93) a100%1400 (174) a100%2758 (226) a100%
V533 (7.8) bc83%90 (21.2) b100%307 (81) b100%
V729 (3.3) b100%66 (7.15) b100%152 (41) bc88%
V1012 (3.0) cd75%22 (4.6) c92%63 (8.6) c92%
VT12 (4.7) d50%23 (9.8) c50%71 (22.3) c100%
Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at (p ≤ 0.05). Letters assigned based on log transformed statistics.
Table
Table 2. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in cotton leaf tissue at each growth stage for the imidacloprid seed treatment (imidacloprid 0.375 mg/seed) and the thiamethoxam seed treatment (thiamethoxam 0.34 mg/seed) across all locations.
Table 2. Mean concentration (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in cotton leaf tissue at each growth stage for the imidacloprid seed treatment (imidacloprid 0.375 mg/seed) and the thiamethoxam seed treatment (thiamethoxam 0.34 mg/seed) across all locations.
Growth Stage0.375 mg Imidacloprid/Seed0.34 mg Thiamethoxam/Seed
ImidaclopridThiamethoxamClothianidin
Mean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
1st Leaf409 (71.2) a100%1640 (313) a100%250 (45.9) a92%
3 Leaf203 (33) a100%466 (61) a100%178 (11) a100%
5 Leaf63 (20.2) b88%117 (31) b92%27.4 (8.2) b58%
7 Leaf41 (16) b75%57 (14.4) bc75%20.2 (6.1) bc63%
9 Leaf7.5 (3.1) c38%22 (6.5) c67%5.6 (2.8) cd50%
1st Flower1.3 (0.5) c38%2.1 (1.1) d33%0.0 (0.0) d0%
Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at (p ≤ 0.05). Letters assigned based on log transformed statistics. Clothianidin mean concentrations reported for tissue from thiamethoxam treatment plots because clothianidin is a primary metabolite of thiamethoxam [29].
Table
Table 3. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soybean leaf tissue from plots containing the thiamethoxam seed treatment (thiamethoxam 0.0778 mg/seed) and the clothianidin seed treatment (clothianidin 0.13 mg/seed) at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Table 3. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soybean leaf tissue from plots containing the thiamethoxam seed treatment (thiamethoxam 0.0778 mg/seed) and the clothianidin seed treatment (clothianidin 0.13 mg/seed) at each sampled growth stage across all locations.
Growth Stage0.0778 mg Thiamethoxam/Seed0.13 mg Clothianidin/Seed
ThiamethoxamClothianidinClothianidin
Mean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% DetectionMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
VC3476 (847) a100%654 (167) a100%496 (177) a100%
V2273 (103) b92%22.3 (14.1) b33%14 (6.3) b50%
V433 (30.2) c50%16.2 (6.6) b50%6.17 (3.0) bc43%
V627.0 (18.0) c63%1.45 (1.0) bc25%0.7 (0.7) c13%
R12.2 (0.9) c50%0.0 (0.0) c0%0.0 (0.0) c0%
Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at (p ≤ 0.05). Letters assigned based on log transformed statistics. Clothianidin mean concentrations reported for tissue from the thiamethoxam treatment plots because clothianidin is a primary metabolite of thiamethoxam [29].
Table
Table 4. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soil from corn plots shortly after emergence (V1) and at early tasseling (VT) across all locations.
Table 4. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soil from corn plots shortly after emergence (V1) and at early tasseling (VT) across all locations.
TreatmentNeonicotinoid CompoundMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
V1VTV1VT
UntreatedClothianidin5.5 (1.5)0.0 (0.0)75%0%
Imidacloprid2.4 (1.6)0.4 (0.4)25%13%
Thiamethoxam0.0 (0.0)0.0 (0.0)0%0%
0.25 mg clothianidin/seedClothianidin14 (3.0)0.0 (0.0)100%0%
Imidacloprid1.1 (1.1)0.5 (0.3)13%25%
Thiamethoxam0.0 (0.0)0.0 (0.0)0%0%
0.5 mg clothianidin/seedClothianidin37.2 (14.7)18.6 (8.0)100%50%
Imidacloprid2.4 (2.4)1.3 (1.1)13%25%
Thiamethoxam0.0 (0.0)0.0 (0.0)0%0%
1.25 mg clothianidin/seedClothianidin25.5 (7.7)9.8 (4.9)100%38%
Imidacloprid2.7 (1.8)0.5 (0.5)25%13%
Thiamethoxam0.0 (0.0)0.0 (0.0)0%0%
Table
Table 5. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soil from cotton plots at the first true-leaf stage and when plants began to flower across all locations.
Table 5. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soil from cotton plots at the first true-leaf stage and when plants began to flower across all locations.
TreatmentNeonicotinoid CompoundMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
1st True Leaf1st Flower1st True Leaf1st Flower
UntreatedClothianidin10.6 (6.5)0.0 (0.0)25%0%
Imidacloprid4.1 (2.6)0.3 (0.3)42%8%
Thiamethoxam3.1 (1.7)0.0 (0.0)25%0%
0.375 mg imidacloprid/seedClothianidin0.0 (0.0)0.0 (0.0)0%0%
Imidacloprid25.1 (23)95.5 (44)75%58%
Thiamethoxam0.0 (0.0)0.0 (0.0)0%0%
0.34 mg thiamethoxam/seedClothianidin0.0 (0.0)3.1 (1.8)25%0%
Imidacloprid1.7 (0.7)0.4 (0.2)25%42%
Thiamethoxam72.6 (43.8)100 (43.2)67%58%
Table
Table 6. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soil from soybean plots at the cotyledon stage (VC) and when plants began to flower (R1) across all locations.
Table 6. Mean concentrations (ng/g) and percent detection of neonicotinoids detected in soil from soybean plots at the cotyledon stage (VC) and when plants began to flower (R1) across all locations.
TreatmentNeonicotinoid CompoundMean Concentration (SEM)% Detection
VCR1VCR1
UntreatedClothianidin0.9 (0.9)5.2 (4.5)13%17%
Imidacloprid1.0 (0.5)1.2 (0.6)38%33%
Thiamethoxam0.0 (0.0)0.0 (0.0)0%0%
0.0778 mg thiamethoxam/seedClothianidin0.9 (0.9)0.5 (0.5)13%8%
Imidacloprid0.0 (0.0)0.4 (0.4)0%8%
Thiamethoxam16.4 (4.9)16.4 (6.9)100%67%
0.13 mg clothianidin/seedClothianidin29.8 (7.5)28.1 (4.6)88%100%
Imidacloprid1.3 (0.8)1.3 (0.6)38%33%
Thiamethoxam0.0 (0.0)6.6 (3.6)0%25%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Whalen, A.; Catchot, A.L., Jr.; Gore, J.; Stewart, S.D.; Lorenz, G.M.; Cook, D.R.; Musser, F.R.; Harris, J.W.; Krishnan, N. Temporal Profile of Neonicotinoid Concentrations in Cotton, Corn, and Soybean Resulting from Insecticidal Seed Treatments. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061200

AMA Style

Whalen A, Catchot AL Jr., Gore J, Stewart SD, Lorenz GM, Cook DR, Musser FR, Harris JW, Krishnan N. Temporal Profile of Neonicotinoid Concentrations in Cotton, Corn, and Soybean Resulting from Insecticidal Seed Treatments. Agronomy. 2021; 11(6):1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Whalen, Adam, Angus L. Catchot, Jr., Jeff Gore, Scott D. Stewart, Gus M. Lorenz, Donald R. Cook, Fred R. Musser, Jeffrey W. Harris, and Natraj Krishnan. 2021. "Temporal Profile of Neonicotinoid Concentrations in Cotton, Corn, and Soybean Resulting from Insecticidal Seed Treatments" Agronomy 11, no. 6: 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061200

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop