| Literature DB >> 29796343 |
Penelope R Whitehorn1,2, George Norville1, Andre Gilburn1, Dave Goulson3.
Abstract
Populations of farmland butterflies have been suffering from substantial population declines in recent decades. These declines have been correlated with neonicotinoid usage both in Europe and North America but experimental evidence linking these correlations is lacking. The potential for non-target butterflies to be exposed to trace levels of neonicotinoids is high, due to the widespread contamination of agricultural soils and wild plants in field margins. Here we provide experimental evidence that field realistic, sub-lethal exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid negatively impacts the development of the common farmland butterfly Pieris brassicae. Cabbage plants were watered with either 0, 1, 10, 100 or 200 parts per billion imidacloprid, to represent field margin plants growing in contaminated agricultural soils and these were fed to P. brassicae larvae. The approximate digestibility (AD) of the cabbage as well as behavioural responses by the larvae to simulated predator attacks were measured but neither were affected by neonicotinoid treatment. However, the duration of pupation and the size of the adult butterflies were both significantly reduced in the exposed butterflies compared to the controls, suggesting that adult fitness is compromised through exposure to this neonicotinoid.Entities:
Keywords: Butterflies; Neonicotinoids; Non-target; Pesticides
Year: 2018 PMID: 29796343 PMCID: PMC5961621 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4772
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Sample sizes across the treatments and larval survival.
| Neonic treatment | Sample size | Predator treatment | Sample size | No. survived to adulthood |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 32 | P | 15 | 14 |
| NP | 17 | 14 | ||
| 1 ppb | 31 | P | 15 | 14 |
| NP | 16 | 15 | ||
| 10 ppb | 32 | P | 15 | 14 |
| NP | 17 | 13 | ||
| 100 ppb | 32 | P | 15 | 15 |
| NP | 17 | 15 | ||
| 200 ppb | 31 | P | 15 | 13 |
| NP | 16 | 16 |
Parameter estimates and 95% CIs from the generalised linear mixed effect models for Approximate Digestibility (AD).
The parameter estimates shown here are with reference to the control neonicotinoid treatment and the non-predator treatment group.
| Parameter estimate | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.052 | 0.346 | 1.758 | |
| Neonic Treatment | 1 ppb | −0.124 | −0.584 | 0.336 |
| 10 ppb | 0.116 | −0.337 | 0.569 | |
| 100 ppb | 0.302 | −0.152 | 0.755 | |
| 200 ppb | −0.048 | −0.493 | 0.397 | |
| Predator treatment | P | 0.144 | −0.138 | 0.425 |
| Initial larval weight | 1.592 | −4.173 | 7.356 | |
| Time |
Figure 1The proportion of larvae reacting with the four behaviours at each time point.
Parameter estimates and 95% CIs from the generalised linear mixed effect models for the behavioural responses to simulated predator attack.
The parameter estimates shown here are with reference to the control neonicotinoid treatment.
| Parameter estimate | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | Parameter estimate | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | Parameter estimate | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | Parameter estimate | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | Parameter estimate | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | Parameter estimate | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.681 | −0.401 | 1.762 | 0.867 | −0.336 | 2.070 | 0.448 | 0.162 | 0.734 | 0.200 | −1.099 | 1.499 | −0.854 | −3.122 | 1.414 | 0.735 | 0.210 | 1.260 | |
| Neonic Treatment | 1 ppb | 0.005 | −0.883 | 0.893 | −0.328 | −1.357 | 0.701 | −0.273 | −1.123 | 0.578 | −0.410 | −1.566 | 0.746 | −0.950 | −3.273 | 1.373 | −0.209 | −0.692 | 0.273 |
| 10 ppb | 0.183 | −0.707 | 1.073 | −0.007 | −2.039 | 2.024 | 0.175 | −0.666 | 1.015 | −0.430 | −1.583 | 0.723 | −0.277 | −2.138 | 1.584 | −0.014 | −0.473 | 0.445 | |
| 100 ppb | 0.651 | −0.264 | 1.567 | 0.329 | −0.651 | 1.309 | 0.333 | −0.505 | 1.171 | 0.156 | −0.881 | 1.193 | −1.116 | −3.431 | 1.199 | 0.131 | −0.311 | 0.572 | |
| 200 ppb | 0.141 | −0.743 | 1.025 | 0.066 | −0.920 | 1.051 | −0.038 | −0.873 | 0.798 | 0.244 | −0.778 | 1.266 | 0.220 | −1.365 | 1.806 | 0.073 | −0.372 | 0.517 | |
| Initial larval weight | −4.698 | −16.01 | 6.609 | −3.673 | −14.33 | 6.983 | −10.61 | −25.10 | 3.89 | −29.464 | −60.65 | 1.723 | |||||||
| Time | −0.128 | −0.461 | 0.461 | −0.350 | −0.712 | 0.013 | −0.178 | −0.503 | 0.147 | −0.287 | −1.051 | 0.478 | |||||||
Figure 2Pupation duration in days in the five cabbage treatment groups.
Figure 3Variables predicting the forewing length of adult butterflies.
(A) Adult forewing length was significantly greater in the control butterflies compared to those exposed to imidacloprid (compared to control: 1ppbt(4) = − 3.74, p < 0.001; 10 ppb t(4) = − 4.71, p < 0.001; 100 ppb t(4) = − 4.94, p < 0.001; 200 ppb t(4) = − 4.36, p < 0.001). (B) Initial larval weight had a significant negative correlation with adult forewing length (t(1) = − 3.45, p < 0.001). (C) Adult females had significantly larger forewings than adult males (t(1) = − 3.73, p < 0.001).