Neonicitonoids offer LLLOOONNNGGG Term Protection Against Pests

One group of pesticides that I have been devoting more and more time to in my Master Gardener training classes is the neonicotinoids. This group of pesticides received quite a bit of news this past week, as news outlets reported on two studies that link bees' declines with neonicotinoids.

Imidacloprid is perhaps the most common neonicotinoid pesticide available to home gardeners, as it was the first neonicotinoid to gain widespread use (Mullins 1993). Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide. When applied as a soil drench or soil injection, it is absorbed by the plant's root system, and distributed to different plant tissues via the plant's vascular system. Imidacloprid can also be applied to plant leaves. This is known as a foliar application. In general, soil applications of imidacloprid take longer to work against insects, compared to foliar applications. However, soil applications of imidacloprid are effective for longer, compared to foliar applications.

There are two primary advantages of using a systemic insecticide, such as imidacloprid, against insect pests.

• First, imidacloprid is highly specific to insects. Imidacloprid is thus less likely to have negative effects on humans and other mammals, compared to other pesticides - such as the organophosphates or carbamates.

• Second, since soil applied imidacloprid is taken up by the plant's roots and incorporated into plant tissues - by definition - only a pest of that plant will get a dose of the insecticide. An insect has to feed on the plant to get a dose of the pesticide. Sitting on the plant is not enough to get a dose. This is one advantage of soil applied systemics, compared to insecticide sprays. With broad spectrum insecticide sprays, every insect in the path of the spray - whether they are the target pest, or a beneficial lacewing - gets a dose of the insecticide. Systemic pesticides diminish these 'non-target effects'. Of course, there is the issue of systemic insecticides being translocated to the nectar and pollen of plants. I'll cover this issue in a future post. Nonetheless, I'll mention here that one way landscape managers try to reduce the impacts of systemic insecticides on bees is by limiting their application to wind-pollinated trees - such as hemlocks.

Other potential advantages of soil-applied imidacloprid include:

• They are easier to apply to trees and large shrubs, relative to foliar sprays, and

• They offer long term protection against pests. In fact, you can often spot those pesticides that are likely to contain imidacloprid as an active ingredient, by looking for phrases such as '12 month control' or 'season long control' on the container.

However, there is much to learn about the long-term persistence of soil applied imidacloprid in trees and shrubs. In fact, the data that is available suggests that long-term persistence may really be LLLLOOONNNNGGGG term persistence.

• Szczepaniec and Raupp (2007) found that toxicity persisted, and pests were absent, up to three years following the application of imidacloprid to potted cotoneaster. It is important to note that the researchers did not sample foliage or look for pests in year four. They stopped their assays three years following the application of imidacloprid.

• Cowles and Lagalante (2009) found that a single soil injection to hemlock can provide between 5-7 years of pest protection, and that imidacloprid was detectable up to 8 years after application. After 5 years, the metabolite imidacloprid olefin was more abundant in tree tissue than imidacloprid. Although the authors of this report note that the olefin metabolite is much less toxic than imidacloprid, Nauen et al. (1999) report that the metabolites (including olefine) of imidacloprid retain toxicity to at least some insect pests.

• Dilling et al. (2010) found that trunk injection of imidacloprid in hemlock trees provided protection against hemlock wooly adelgid for 3-5 years.

• Webb et al. (2003) also found that a soil drench of imidacloprid protected hemlock trees from hemlock wooly adelgid for almost three years - the extent of the assays in this study.

Now, I'm not writing this post to be anti-pesticide or anti-imidacloprid. In fact, imidacloprid has great potential as a tool that ecologists and land managers can use to save ancient hemlock forests from the invasive insect, hemlock wooly adelgid. This insect is having large-scale, ecosystem level effects that threaten unprecedented hemlock loss (Orwig et al. 2002). If we love hemlocks and hemlock forests, then it makes sense to consider imidacloprid as one tool that can be used against hemlock wooly adelgid, as part of a comprehensive integrated pest management plan. Remember that hemlocks are wind pollinated, thus lessening the potential negative impacts of imidacloprid-treated trees to bees.

Instead, I'm writing this post because I worry that too many home gardeners see the advertisement of '12 month control' on the front of the label, and think 'hmmm . . . . why purchase a product that can give me short term control, when I can get one with really long term control? That seems like the best buy!'

If you are having a short-term, one-time problem with aphids on your rose bushes, I'm not sure that imidacloprid is your best choice. In fact, for short-term, one time pest problems on any plant, I'm not so sure that imidacloprid is the best choice. Thus, I wanted to write a post that points out that the long term protection advertised may be RRREEEEAAAALLLLLlllllyyyyyy long term protection.

It's interesting to note that only one of the studies that I listed (Szczepaniec and Raupp (2007)) looked at the long-term persistence of imidicloprid in an ornamental plant. It's also interesting to note that many of these studies could detect imidacloprid (via bio-assay of pests or chemical assays for the active ingredient) up through their last sampling date. Thus, there is clearly more to learn about the persistence of imidacloprid in home gardens.

Are soil-applied systemic insecticides the best choice for pest problems in the home garden?

Are annual applications necessary?

I can't answer these questions - but I think they're important questions to ask.

Do Companion Plants Offer Protection from Insect Pests?

This past week, I attended the Pacific Branch Meeting of the Entomological Society of America (PB-ESA). The meeting was held in Portland, so it was a wonderful opportunity to interact with and learn from entomologists from CA, HI, ID, UT, MT, WA, AZ . . . and of course, OR. What I love so much about scientific conferences, such as the PB-ESA, is that we get a chance to hear about hot and happening research results. Scientific conferences are an opportunity present your work to your scientific colleagues for consideration and critique, before you publish the results of your research.

One talk that really stood out to me was the fantastic work of Joyce Parker. Joyce was examining the efficacy of two ecologically-based pest management practices in broccoli: trap cropping and companion plants.

Trap cropping is a practice where farmers plant a 'trap' crop next to the target crop that they want to protect. Pests are attracted to the trap crop, where they can be managed via targeted chemical controls. The pesticides applied are greatly reduced to a few strips of the trap crop, rather than being broadcast across the larger geographic area of the target crop.

Companion planting is a practice where farmers plant aromatic crops next to the target crop that they want to protect. The aromas of the companion plants are said to 'hide' the target crop from insect pests. Many gardeners also use companion plants in their garden, by planting marigolds next to marigolds next to cucumbers, or dill next to cabbage.

Joyce's results suggest that using mustard as a trap crop was an effective, ecological pest management strategy in broccoli fields. However, her companion plants (Yukon Gold potato, marigolds, dill, and bunching green onions) didn't protect broccoli from the crucifer flea beetle. Her results align with several others studies which found that companion plants don't mask target crops with their aroma:

• Finch et al. 2003: cabbage root fly and onion fly were distracted from target crops by the leaf color of some companion plants - but not by the aroma of companion plants.
• Held et al. 2003: companion plantings of geranium actually INCREASED Japanese beetles on roses. So too did fennel seeds, cedar shavings, crushed red pepper, and osage orange.
• Latheef and Erwin 1979: cabbage interplanted with peppermint, nasturtium, marigold and/or thyme had just as many caterpillars as cabbage planted with other cabbage.
• Latheef and Ortiz 1984: hyssop and santolina did not protect cabbage from crucifer flea beetles. Wormwood and tansy reduced crucifer flea beetle numbers by about half (as compared to control cabbage - planted without companion plants). However, damage from crucifer flea beetles was still high on cabbage interplanted with wormword or tansy.

Nonetheless, some gardeners swear by the use of companion plants in the garden. I always tell gardeners that if they feel it's working for them - keep doing what they're doing. Companion plants can be a great way to add color and variety to the vegetable garden. However, if you're planting companion plants purely for the pest control benefits that you've head they might confer . . . you may be disappointed.

Instead, I would suggest planting insectary plants - such as coneflowers, tickseed, bee balm or spirea. These plants have been tested by researchers at Michigan State University and ranked according to their attractiveness to pollinators, parasitoids and predators.



Yarrow, such as this specimen in the Lincoln County Master Gardener Demonstration Garden, attract a wide variety of beneficial insects when in bloom.