Arthropod pest control for UK oilseed rape – comparing insecticide efficacies, side effects and alternatives

A - Papers appearing in refereed journals

Zhang, Han, Breeze, T., Bailey, A., Garthwaite, D. G., Harrington, R. and Potts, S. G. 2017. Arthropod pest control for UK oilseed rape – comparing insecticide efficacies, side effects and alternatives. PLOS ONE. 12 (1), p. e0169475.

AuthorsZhang, Han, Breeze, T., Bailey, A., Garthwaite, D. G., Harrington, R. and Potts, S. G.
Abstract

Oilseed rape (Brassica napus) is an important combinable break crop in the UK, which is largely protected from arthropod pests by insecticidal chemicals. Despite ongoing debate regarding the use of neonicotinoids, the dominant seed treatment ingredients used for this crop, there is little publicly available data comparing the efficacy of insecticides in controlling key arthropod pests or comparing the impacts on non-target species and the wider environment. To provide an insight into these matters, a UK-wide expert survey targeting agronomists and entomologists was conducted from March to June 2015. Based on the opinions of 90 respondents, an average of 20% yield loss caused by the key arthropod pests was expected to have occurred in the absence of insecticide treatments. Relatively older chemical groups were perceived to have lower efficacy for target pests than newer ones, partly due to the development of insecticide resistance. Without neonicotinoid seed treatments, a lack of good control for cabbage stem flea beetle was perceived. Wide spectrum foliar insecticide sprays were perceived to have significantly greater negative impacts than seed treatments on users' health, natural enemies, pollinators, soil and water, and many foliar active ingredients have had potential risks for non-target arthropod species in UK oilseed rape fields for the past 25 years. Overall, 72% of respondents opposed the neonicotinoid restriction, while 10% supported it. Opposition and support of the restriction were largely based on concerns for pollinators and the wider environment, highlighting the uncertainty over the side effects of neonicotinoid use. More people from the government and research institutes leaned towards neutrality over the issue, compared to those directly involved in growing the crop. Neonicotinoid restriction was expected to result in greater effort and expenditure on pest control and lower production (0±1 t/ha less). Alternatives for future oilseed rape protection were then discussed.

Year of Publication2017
JournalPLOS ONE
Journal citation12 (1), p. e0169475
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169475
PubMed ID28076392
PubMed Central IDPMC5226783
Open accessPublished as ‘gold’ (paid) open access
FunderBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
European Union
Funder project or codeThe Rothamsted Insect Survey [2012-2017]
LIBERATION Project (Linking farmland Biodiversity to Ecosystem seRvices for effective ecological intensification
Publisher's version
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Online11 Dec 2016
Publication process dates
Accepted16 Nov 2016
PublisherPublic Library of Science, San Fancisco (PLOS)
Public Library of Science (PLOS)
Copyright licenseCC BY
ISSN1932-6203

Permalink - https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/8v439/arthropod-pest-control-for-uk-oilseed-rape-comparing-insecticide-efficacies-side-effects-and-alternatives

21 total views
44 total downloads
3 views this month
0 downloads this month
Download files as zip