A neonicotinoid insecticide reduces fueling and delays migration in songbirds
Hazardous delays
Neonicotinoids are a widely used group of pesticides that have been shown to have negative impacts on an increasing number of species, most notably pollinators. Eng et al. tested how exposure to these compounds influenced the behavior of a migrating songbird. Ingestion of field-realistic levels of neonicotinoid insecticides reduced feeding and accumulation of body mass and fat stores, which led to delayed departure from stopover sites. Such delays can lead to reduced migration survival and decreased reproductive success and therefore have the potential to impose population-level impacts.
Science, this issue p. 1177
Abstract
Neonicotinoids are neurotoxic insecticides widely used as seed treatments, but little is known of their effects on migrating birds that forage in agricultural areas. We tracked the migratory movements of imidacloprid-exposed songbirds at a landscape scale using a combination of experimental dosing and automated radio telemetry. Ingestion of field-realistic quantities of imidacloprid (1.2 or 3.9 milligrams per kilogram body mass) by white-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys) during migratory stopover caused a rapid reduction in food consumption, mass, and fat and significantly affected their probability of departure. Birds in the high-dose treatment stayed a median of 3.5 days longer at the site of capture after exposure as compared with controls, likely to regain fuel stores or recover from intoxication. Migration delays can carry over to affect survival and reproduction; thus, these results confirm a link between sublethal pesticide exposure and adverse outcomes for migratory bird populations.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber?Sign In
Supplementary Material
Summary
Materials and Methods
Tables S1 to S5
Resources
File (aaw9419-eng-sm.pdf)
References and Notes
1
F. Bairlein, E. Gwinner, Nutritional mechanisms and temporal control of migratory energy accumulation in birds. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 14, 187–215 (1994).
2
J. E. Elliott, C. Bishop, in Environmental Contaminants in Biota, W. N. Beyer, J. P. Meador, Eds. (CRC Press, 2011), pp. 447–475.
3
L. M. Flahr, N. L. Michel, A. R. D. Zahara, P. D. Jones, C. A. Morrissey, Developmental exposure to Aroclor 1254 alters migratory behaviour in juvenile European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 6274–6283 (2015).
4
N. B. Vyas, E. F. Hill, J. R. Sauer, W. J. Kuenzel, Acephate affects migratory orientation of the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14, 1961–1965 (1995).
5
I. Newton, Can conditions experienced during migration limit the population levels of birds? J. Ornithol. 147, 146–166 (2006).
6
N. Simon-Delso, V. Amaral-Rogers, L. P. Belzunces, J. M. Bonmatin, M. Chagnon, C. Downs, L. Furlan, D. W. Gibbons, C. Giorio, V. Girolami, D. Goulson, D. P. Kreutzweiser, C. H. Krupke, M. Liess, E. Long, M. McField, P. Mineau, E. A. D. Mitchell, C. A. Morrissey, D. A. Noome, L. Pisa, J. Settele, J. D. Stark, A. Tapparo, H. Van Dyck, J. Van Praagh, J. P. Van der Sluijs, P. R. Whitehorn, M. Wiemers, Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): Trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 22, 5–34 (2015).
7
M. Tomizawa, J. E. Casida, Selective toxicity of neonicotinoids attributable to specificity of insect and mammalian nicotinic receptors. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 48, 339–364 (2003).
8
A. Lopez-Antia, M. E. Ortiz-Santaliestra, F. Mougeot, R. Mateo, Imidacloprid-treated seed ingestion has lethal effect on adult partridges and reduces both breeding investment and offspring immunity. Environ. Res. 136, 97–107 (2015).
9
A. Lopez-Antia, M. E. Ortiz-Santaliestra, F. Mougeot, R. Mateo, Experimental exposure of red-legged partridges (Alectoris rufa) to seeds coated with imidacloprid, thiram and difenoconazole. Ecotoxicology 22, 125–138 (2013).
10
M. L. Eng, B. J. M. Stutchbury, C. A. Morrissey, Imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos insecticides impair migratory ability in a seed-eating songbird. Sci. Rep. 7, 15176 (2017).
11
A. Lopez-Antia, J. Feliu, P. R. Camarero, M. E. Ortiz-Santaliestra, R. Mateo, Risk assessment of pesticide seed treatment for farmland birds using refined field data. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 1373–1381 (2016).
12
C. Hao, M. L. Eng, F. Sun, C. A. Morrissey, Part-per-trillion LC-MS/MS determination of neonicotinoids in small volumes of songbird plasma. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 1080–1087 (2018).
13
S. Humann-Guilleminot, S. Clément, J. Desprat, Ł. J. Binkowski, G. Glauser, F. Helfenstein, A large-scale survey of house sparrows feathers reveals ubiquitous presence of neonicotinoids in farmlands. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 1091–1097 (2019).
14
C. J. Botha, E. C. Du Plessis, H. Coetser, M. Rosemann, Analytical confirmation of imidacloprid poisoning in granivorous Cape spurfowl (Pternistis capensis). J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 89, e1–e5 (2018).
15
C. L. Roy, P. L. Coy, D. Chen, J. Ponder, M. Jankowski, Multi-scale availability of neonicotinoid-treated seed for wildlife in an agricultural landscape during spring planting. Sci. Total Environ. 682, 271–281 (2019).
16
P. F. Donald, F. J. Sanderson, I. J. Burfield, F. P. J. van Bommel, Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990-2000. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 116, 189–196 (2006).
17
R. L. Stanton, C. A. Morrissey, R. G. Clark, Analysis of trends and agricultural drivers of farmland bird declines in North America: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 254, 244–254 (2018).
18
C. A. Hallmann, R. P. B. Foppen, C. A. M. van Turnhout, H. de Kroon, E. Jongejans, Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511, 341–343 (2014).
19
W. J. Sacks, D. Deryng, J. A. Foley, N. Ramankutty, Crop planting dates: An analysis of global patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 607–620 (2010).
20
C. G. Guglielmo, Obese super athletes: Fat-fueled migration in birds and bats. J. Exp. Biol. 221 (Suppl 1), jeb165753 (2018).
21
L. M. Addy-Orduna, J. C. Brodeur, R. Mateo, Oral acute toxicity of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin in eared doves: A contribution for the risk assessment of neonicotinoids in birds. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 1216–1223 (2019).
22
Y. H. Jo, D. A. Talmage, L. W. Role, Nicotinic receptor-mediated effects on appetite and food intake. J. Neurobiol. 53, 618–632 (2002).
23
Å. Lindström, in Avian Migration, P. Berthold, E. Gwinner, E. Sonnenschein, Eds. (Springer, 2003), pp. 307–320.
24
C. Eikenaar, F. Bairlein, Food availability and fuel loss predict Zugunruhe. J. Ornithol. 155, 65–70 (2014).
25
M. Y. Liu, J. E. Casida, High affinity binding of [3H]imidacloprid in the insect acetylcholine receptor. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 46, 40–46 (1993).
26
T. Alerstam, Optimal bird migration revisited. J. Ornithol. 152 (S1), 5–23 (2011).
27
H. Kokko, Competition for early arrival in migratory birds. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 940–950 (1999).
28
R. J. Smith, F. R. Moore, Arrival timing and seasonal reproductive performance in a long-distance migratory landbird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 231–239 (2005).
29
Health Canada, Imidacloprid: Proposed Re-evaluation Decision. Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) decision PRVD2016-20 (PMRA, 2016).
30
A. Lopez-Antia, M. E. Ortiz-Santaliestra, R. Mateo, Experimental approaches to test pesticide-treated seed avoidance by birds under a simulated diversification of food sources. Sci. Total Environ. 496, 179–187 (2014).
31
M. L. Avery, D. G. Decker, D. L. Fischer, T. R. Stafford, Responses of captive blackbirds to a new insecticidal seed treatment. J. Wildl. Manage. 57, 652–656 (1993).
32
F. Millot, A. Decors, O. Mastain, T. Quintaine, P. Berny, D. Vey, R. Lasseur, E. Bro, Field evidence of bird poisonings by imidacloprid-treated seeds: A review of incidents reported by the French SAGIR network from 1995 to 2014. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 24, 5469–5485 (2017).
33
M. L. Eng, B. J. M. Stutchbury, C. A. Morrissey, Federated Research Data Repository (2019); doi:
34
G. Chilton, M. C. Baker, C. D. Barrentine, M. A. Cunningham, in The Birds of North America, A. F. Poole, F. B. Gill, Eds. (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 1995).
35
S. T. Emlen, J. T. Emlen, A technique for recording migratory orientation of captive birds. Auk 83, 361–367 (1966).
356
R. Muheim, J. B. Phillips, S. Akesson, Polarized light cues underlie compass calibration in migratory songbirds. Science 313, 837–839 (2006).
37
R. Muheim, I. Henshaw, S. Sjöberg, M. E. Deutschlander, BirdOriTrack: A new video-tracking program for orientation research with migratory birds. J. Field Ornithol. 85, 91–105 (2014).
38
C. G. Guglielmo, L. P. McGuire, A. R. Gerson, C. L. Seewagen, Simple, rapid, and non-invasive measurement of fat, lean, and total water masses of live birds using quantitative magnetic resonance. J. Ornithol. 152 (S1), 75–85 (2011).
39
L. V. Kennedy, Y. E. Morbey, S. A. Mackenzie, P. D. Taylor, C. G. Guglielmo, A field test of the effects of body composition analysis by quantitative magnetic resonance on songbird stopover behaviour. J. Ornithol. 158, 593–601 (2017).
40
P. D. Taylor, T. L. Crewe, S. A. Mackenzie, D. Lepage, Y. Aubry, Z. Crysler, G. Finney, C. M. Francis, C. G. Guglielmo, D. J. Hamilton, R. L. Holberton, P. H. Loring, G. W. Mitchell, D. R. Norris, J. Paquet, R. A. Ronconi, J. R. Smetzer, P. A. Smith, L. J. Welch, B. K. Woodworth, The Motus Wildlife Tracking System: A collaborative research network to enhance the understanding of wildlife movement. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 12, 8 (2017).
41
A. M. Mills, B. G. Thurber, S. A. Mackenzie, P. D. Taylor, Passerines use nocturnal flight for landscape-scale movements during migration stopover. Condor 113, 597–607 (2011).
42
M. Kanamitsu, W. Ebisuzaki, J. Woollen, S.-K. Yang, J. J. Hnilo, M. Fiorino, G. L. Potter, NCEP-DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (R-2). Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1631–1644 (2002).
43
M. U. Kemp, E. Emiel van Loon, J. Shamoun-Baranes, W. Bouten, RNCEP: Global weather and climate data at your fingertips. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 65–70 (2012).
44
G. W. Mitchell, B. K. Woodworth, P. D. Taylor, D. R. Norris, Automated telemetry reveals age specific differences in flight duration and speed are driven by wind conditions in a migratory songbird. Mov. Ecol. 3, 19 (2015).
45
M. U. Kemp, J. Shamoun-Baranes, E. E. van Loon, J. D. McLaren, A. M. Dokter, W. Bouten, Quantifying flow-assistance and implications for movement research. J. Theor. Biol. 308, 56–67 (2012).
46
R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, (2018); www.R-project.org
47
SAS Institute, SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, 2012).
48
P. D. Allison, Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide (SAS Institute, ed. 2, 2010).
49
M. Ramenofsky, R. Agatsuma, T. Ramfar, Environmental conditions affect the behavior of captive, migratory white-crowned sparrows. Condor 110, 658–671 (2008).
50
P. Mineau, C. Palmer, The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds (American Bird Conservancy, 2013).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science
Volume 365 • Issue 6458 • 13 September 2019
Pages: 1177 - 1180
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.
History
Received: 7 February 2019
Revision received: 12 July 2019
Accepted: 14 August 2019
Acknowledgments
Thank you to A. Wilson for field assistance, T. Crewe and S. McKenzie (Bird Studies Canada) for logistical support, M. Conboy (Long Point Bird Observatory) for field support, C. Guglielmo (Western University) for use of the mobile Field Laboratory for Integrative Ecological Research and the QMR, Ducks Unlimited Canada for access to the field site for Emlen trials, K. Peru and J. Headley (National Hydrology Research Centre) for imidacloprid dosing solution analysis, and C. Hao (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Ontario) for sparrow plasma analysis of imidacloprid. Funding: Funding was provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery grant to C.A.M., a Kenneth M. Molson Foundation grant to B.J.M.S., a NSERC RTI grant to C.A.M and B.J.M.S., and a Mitacs Accelerate fellowship in partnership with Bird Studies Canada to M.L.E. Author contributions: C.A.M. and B.J.M.S. conceived the experiment, and M.L.E. contributed to experimental design. M.L.E. conducted the experiment, analyzed the results, and led the writing. All authors contributed to the writing of the final manuscript. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests; Data and materials availability: Telemetry data are available from the Motus Wildlife Tracking System (https://motus.org/data/downloads), and body condition data are available at the Federated Research Data Repository (www.frdr.ca) (33).
Authors
Funding Information
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada: RGPIN-2016-05436
Mitacs: IT09196
Kenneth M. Molson Foundation:
RE: Properly framed and balanced science is needed to inform policy makers on "pesticides"
Dear Editor,
Capturing wild birds and force-feeding 3-10% of a lethal dose (of anything) is cruel. It's not surprising birds would become sick, disoriented and lose weight. What then was surprising about Eng et al's recent study[1]? The doses of neonics used for force-feeding were not supported by field observations, they were only what the authors considered "a bird could realistically consume if they accidentally ingested". Therefore, the key question, if significant numbers of birds actually eat enough neonic-dressed seed to impact them, remains unanswered. As for their previous similar study[2].
Since there wasn't demonstrated field relevance, and results were unsurprising, how come these studies were published in premium journals? It seems that studies supporting widely-held prejudicial views for which society has been primed by pressure groups, are held to different standards. We should not be surprised, science is a human endeavor, and is subject to biases and societal forces. Furthermore, for matters involving farming these biases are particularly problematic. The modern societies from which scientists, editors and reviewers are drawn are essentially urban[3]; misconceptions and naïve assumptions about food production are widespread.
It's worth noting that an earlier neonic publication in Science[4] reported the completely obvious result that insecticides harm insects. This publication also framed an obvious result in a way that looked concerning, but without evidence of relevance in the field, and without any consideration of impacts of alternative methods of food production. In many ways these papers mirror the BT-maize Monarch butterfly experiment published in Nature decades ago[5]. That study, in highly artificial laboratory conditions, only showed that bioengineered plants developed to be insecticidal, were in fact, insecticidal. Subsequent experience has shown there is no relevance to field conditions, but the damage done to bioengineering was long-lasting (even though bioengineering has, in fact, reduced the use of insecticide sprays[6]). Returning to neonics, a more recent study published in Science[7] did gather valuable field data, but suffered from unbalanced presentation. Depending on the country of data collection, and the particular metric considered, both positive and negative outcomes for bee hives were correlated with nearby neonic treatments of oilseed. However, the manuscript placed unbalanced emphasis on the negative effects. A clear-cut example is in Fig. 2 where the graph axis for the country with most positive effects is compressed twofold compared to the other graphs.
Whilst public opinion is weighed against "pesticides" (a term which, like "GMO", unifies diverse products thus facilitating vilification), matters are more complex than widely appreciated. Scientific journals must cultivate a greater awareness that properly framed and balanced science best informs the policies which will have positive consequences in the real world. For overall benefit, real effects in the field and trade-offs need to be considered. Bans lead to increased use of alternative products, and yield losses are likely to be simply "off-shored" to new deforestation in the tropics.
yours faithfully,
David Bertioli
(1) Eng ML, Stutchbury BJ, Morrissey CA. A neonicotinoid insecticide reduces fueling and delays migration in songbirds. Science. 2019 13;365:1177-80.
(2) Eng ML, Stutchbury BJ, Morrissey CA. Imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos insecticides impair migratory ability in a seed-eating songbird. Scientific reports. 2017 7:15176.
(3) Roser M, Employment in Agriculture. https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture
(4) Whitehorn PR, O'Connor S, Wackers FL, Goulson D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science. 2012 336:351-352.
(5) Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature. 1999 399:214.
(6) Baulcombe D, Dunwell J, Jones J, Leyser O, Pickett J, Skehel J. GM Plants: questions and answers. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/gm-plants/gm-plant-q-an...
(7) Woodcock BA, Bullock JM, Shore RF, Heard MS, Pereira MG, Redhead J, Ridding L, Dean H, Sleep D, Henrys P, Peyton J. Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees. Science. 2017 356:1393-5.