Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 7050–7054 | Cite as

Underestimating neonicotinoid exposure: how extent and magnitude may be affected by land-use change

  • Jesko ZimmermannEmail author
  • Jane C. Stout
Short Research and Discussion Article


Potential detrimental impacts of neonicotinoids on non-target organisms, especially bees, have been subject to a wide debate and the subsequent ban of three neonicotinoids by the EU. While recent research has fortified concerns regarding the effects of neonicotinoids on ecosystem service (ES) providers, potential impacts have been considered negligible in systems with a relatively small proportion of arable land and thus lower the use of these pesticides. In this paper we argue that there is not sufficient information to assess magnitude and extent of neonicotinoid application, as well as potential non-target impacts on ES providers in grass-dominated systems with frequent land-use change. Using Ireland as an example, we show that the highly dynamic agricultural landscape, in conjunction with estimated persistence times of neonicotinoids in soils, may lead to a much larger area (18.6 ± 0.6 % of the Irish agricultural area) exposed to these pesticides than initially assumed. Furthermore we present a number of important gaps in current research regarding the impacts of neonicotinoids on ES providers in such systems.


Ecosystem services Land-use change Grassland Persistence in soil Neonicotinoids Arable farming Pesticides 



We would like the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Jesko Zimmermann is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland (grant number 2012-CCRP-FS.9) as part of the Science, Technology, Research and Innovation for the Environment (STRIVE) Programme, financed by the Irish Government under the National Development Plan 2007-2013, administered on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.


  1. Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemüller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, Schaffers AP, Potts SG, Kleukers R, Thomas CD, Settele J, Kunin WE (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryden J, Gill RJ, Mitton RAA, Raine NE, Jansen VAA (2013) Chronic sublethal stress causes bee colony failure. Ecol Lett 16:1463–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, Griswold TL (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chagnon M, Kreutzweiser D, Mitchell ED, Morrissey C, Noome D, Van der Sluijs J (2015) Risks of large-scale use of systemic insecticides to ecosystem functioning and services. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cloyd RA, Bethke JA (2011) Impact of neonicotinoid insecticides on natural enemies in greenhouse and interiorscape environments. Pest Manag Sci 67:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CSO (2014): Area farmed in June by region, type of land-use and yearGoogle Scholar
  7. DAFM (2010) Food Harvest 2020 - A vision for Irish agri-food and fishery, Department for Agriculture. Food and the Marine, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  8. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech J-M (2007) The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52:81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas MR, Rohr JR, Tooker JF (2014) Neonicotinoid insecticide travels through a soil food chain, disrupting biological control of non-target pests and decreasing soya bean yield. J Appl Ecology 52:250–260Google Scholar
  10. EASAC (2015) Ecosystem services, agriculture and neonicotinoids. European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, Halle/Saale, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2013): Commission implementation regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances (1). Official Journal of the European Union L139:12–26Google Scholar
  12. Gallai N, Salles J-M, Settele J, Vaissière BE (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68:810–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geiger F et al (2010) Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl Ecol 11:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gill RJ, Raine NE (2014) Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behaviour induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Funct Ecol 28:1459–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Girolami V, Mazzon L, Squartini A, Mori N, Marzaro M, Greatti M, Giorio C, Tapparo A (2009) Translocation of neonicotinoid insecticides from coated seeds to seedling guttation drops: a novel way of intoxication for bees. J Econ Entomol 102:1808–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Girolami V, Marzaro M, Vivan L, Mazzon L, Greatti M, Giorio C, Marton D, Tapparo A (2012) Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implication. J Appl Entomol 136:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Girolami V, Marzaro M, Vivan L, Mazzon L, Giorio C, Marton D, Tapparo A (2013) Aerial powdering of bees inside mobile cages and the extent of neonicotinoid cloud surrounding corn drillers. J Appl Entomol 137:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goulson D (2013) An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. J Appl Ecol 50:977–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL (2015): Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347Google Scholar
  20. Hallmann CA, Foppen RPB, van Turnhout CAM, de Kroon H, Jongejans E (2014) Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson HI, Smith HG, Hedlund K (2015) Agricultural management reduces emergence of pollen beetle parasitoids. Agr Ecosyst Environ 205:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc Series B Biol Sci 274:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krupke CH, Hunt GJ, Eitzer BD, Andino G, Given K (2012) Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS One 7, e29268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laycock I, Lenthall K, Barratt A, Cresswell J (2012) Effects of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, on reproduction in worker bumble bees (Bombus terrestris). Ecotoxicology 21:1937–1945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Main AR, Headley JV, Peru KM, Michel NL, Cessna AJ, Morrissey CA (2014) Widespread use and frequent detection of neonicotinoid insecticides in wetlands of Canada’s Prairie Pothole Region. PLoS One 9, e92821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marzaro M, Vivan L, Targa A, Mazzon L, Mori N, Greatti M, Petrucco Toffolo E, Di Bernardo A, Giorio C, Marton D (2011) Lethal aerial powdering of honey bees with neonicotinoids from fragments of maize seed coat. B Insectol 64:119–126Google Scholar
  27. Nuyttens D, Devarrewaere W, Verboven P, Foqué D (2013) Pesticide-laden dust emission and drift from treated seeds during seed drilling: a review. Pest Manag Sci 69:564–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. PCS (2006) Pesticide usage survey - Grasslands and fodder crops 2003. Pesticide Control Service, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  29. PCS (2007) Pesticide usage survey—arable crops 2004. Pesticide Control Service, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  30. Peck DC (2009) Long-term effects of imidacloprid on the abundance of surface- and soil-active nontarget fauna in turf. Agric For Entomol 11:405–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pilling ED, Jepson PC (1993) Synergism between EBI fungicides and a pyrethroid insecticide in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Pestic Sci 39:293–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poletti M, Maia A, Omoto C (2007) Toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus macropilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and their impact on functional response to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Biol Control 40:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies, 365, 2959–2971Google Scholar
  35. Renwick A, Jansson T, Verburg PH, Revoredo-Giha C, Britz W, Gocht A, McCracken D (2013) Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 30:446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rundlöf M, Andersson GKS, Bommarco R, Fries I, Hederström V, Herbertsson L, Jonsson O, Klatt BK, Pedersen TR, Yourstone J, Smith HG (2015): Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521:77–80Google Scholar
  37. Sánchez-Bayo F (2014) The trouble with neonicotinoids. Science 346:806–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmuck R, Stadler T, Schmidt H-W (2003) Field relevance of a synergistic effect observed in the laboratory between an EBI fungicide and a chloronicotinyl insecticide in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L, Hymenoptera). Pest Manag Sci 59:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Starner K, Goh K (2012) Detections of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid in surface waters of three agricultural regions of California, USA, 2010–2011. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 88:316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tapparo A, Giorio C, Marzaro M, Marton D, Soldà L, Girolami V (2011) Rapid analysis of neonicotinoid insecticides in guttation drops of corn seedlings obtained from coated seeds. J Environ Monit 13:1564–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tapparo A, Marton D, Giorio C, Zanella A, Soldà L, Marzaro M, Vivan L, Girolami V (2012) Assessment of the environmental exposure of honeybees to particulate matter containing neonicotinoid insecticides coming from corn coated seeds. Environ Sci Technol 46:2592–2599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas MR (2008) Guidelines for the collection of pesticide usage statistics within agriculture and horticulture. European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  43. Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:20260–20264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang Y, Cang T, Zhao X, Yu R, Chen L, Wu C, Wang Q (2012) Comparative acute toxicity of twenty-four insecticides to earthworm, Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 79:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL, Goulson D (2012) Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336:351–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhao Y, Singleton P, Meredith S, Rennick G (2013) Current status of pesticides application and their residue in the water environment in Ireland. Int J Environ Stud 70:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zimmermann J, González A, Jones MB, O’Brien P, Stout JC, Green S (2016): Assessing land-use history for reporting on cropland dynamics—A comparison between the Land-Parcel Identification System and traditional inter-annual approaches. Land Use Policy 52:30–40Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, College GreenDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations