IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i10p484-d431396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neonicotinoid Residues in Sugar Beet Plants and Soil under Different Agro-Climatic Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Helena Viric Gasparic

    (Department of Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetosimunska Street 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Mirela Grubelic

    (Euroinspekt Croatiakontrola Ltd. for Control of Goods and Engineering, Karlovacka 4 L, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Verica Dragovic Uzelac

    (Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Pierottijeva Street 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Renata Bazok

    (Department of Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetosimunska Street 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Maja Cacija

    (Department of Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetosimunska Street 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Zrinka Drmic

    (Department of Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetosimunska Street 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
    Croatian Agency for Agriculture and Food, Vinkovačka Street 63c, 31000 Osijek, Croatia)

  • Darija Lemic

    (Department of Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetosimunska Street 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

European sugar beet was mostly grown from seeds treated by neonicotinoids which provided efficient control of some important sugar beet pests (aphids and flea beetles). The EU commission regulation from 2018 to ultimately restrict the outdoor application of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin could significantly affect European sugar beet production. Although alternative insecticides (spinosad, chlorantraniliprole, neem) are shown to have certain effects on particular pests when applied as seed treatment, it is not likely that in near future any insecticide will be identified as a good candidate for neonicotinoids’ substitution. The aim of this research is to evaluate residue levels (LC-MS/MS method) of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam applied as seed dressing in sugar beet plants during two growing seasons in fields located in different agro-climatic regions and in greenhouse trials. In 2015, 25 to 27 days post planting (PP) maximum of 0.028% of imidacloprid and 0.077% of thiamethoxam were recovered from the emerged plants, respectively. In 2016, the recovery rate from the emerged plants 40 days PP was 0.003% for imidacloprid and 50 days PP was up to 0.022% for thiamethoxam. There were no neonicotinoid residues above the maximum residue level in roots at the time of harvesting, except in case of samples from thiamethoxam variant collected from greenhouse trials in 2016 (0.053 mg/kg). The results of this research lead to the conclusion that the seed treatment of sugar beet leaves minimal trace in plants because of the complete degradation while different behavior has been observed in the two fields and a glasshouse trial regarding the residues in soil. Dry conditions, leaching incapacity, or irregular flushing can result in higher concentrations in soil which can present potential risk for the succeeding crops. The results of our study could provide additional arguments about possible risk assessment for seed treatment in sugar beet.

Suggested Citation

  • Helena Viric Gasparic & Mirela Grubelic & Verica Dragovic Uzelac & Renata Bazok & Maja Cacija & Zrinka Drmic & Darija Lemic, 2020. "Neonicotinoid Residues in Sugar Beet Plants and Soil under Different Agro-Climatic Conditions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:10:p:484-:d:431396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/10/484/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/10/484/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Alford & Christian H Krupke, 2017. "Translocation of the neonicotinoid seed treatment clothianidin in maize," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milorad Vojvodić & Renata Bažok, 2021. "Future of Insecticide Seed Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Roxana Zaharia & Elena Trotuș & Georgeta Trașcă & Emil Georgescu & Agripina Șapcaliu & Viorel Fătu & Cristina Petrișor & Carmen Mincea, 2023. "Impact of Seed Treatment with Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam on Soil, Plants, Bees and Hive Products," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Renata Bažok, 2022. "Integrated Pest Management of Field Crops," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-5, March.
    4. Ivana Varga & Zdenko Lončarić & Suzana Kristek & Antonela Markulj Kulundžić & Andrijana Rebekić & Manda Antunović, 2021. "Sugar Beet Root Yield and Quality with Leaf Seasonal Dynamics in Relation to Planting Densities and Nitrogen Fertilization," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-11, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mária Mörtl & Eszter Takács & Szandra Klátyik & András Székács, 2020. "Appearance of Thiacloprid in the Guttation Liquid of Coated Maize Seeds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Roxana Zaharia & Elena Trotuș & Georgeta Trașcă & Emil Georgescu & Agripina Șapcaliu & Viorel Fătu & Cristina Petrișor & Carmen Mincea, 2023. "Impact of Seed Treatment with Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam on Soil, Plants, Bees and Hive Products," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Agatz, Annika & Ashauer, Roman & Sweeney, Paul & Brown, Colin D., 2020. "A knowledge-based approach to designing control strategies for agricultural pests," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:10:p:484-:d:431396. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.