Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Another Look at Systemic Neonicotinoid Applications for Emerald Ash Borer Suppression

David G. Olson, Lee H. Townsend, Eric Roemmele and Lynne K. Rieske
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 2020, 46 (5) 347-357; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.025
David G. Olson
David G. Olson, University of Kentucky, Department of Entomology, S-225 Ag North, Lexington, KY, USA,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Lee H. Townsend
Lee H. Townsend, retired, University of Kentucky, Department of Entomology, S-225 Ag North, Lexington, KY, USA,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Eric Roemmele
Eric Roemmele, University of Kentucky, Department of Statistics, S-225 Ag North, Lexington, KY, USA,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Lynne K. Rieske
Lynne K. Rieske (corresponding author), University of Kentucky, Department of Entomology, S-225 Ag North, Lexington, KY, USA, 859-257-1167,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis) is an invasive phloem feeder from East Asia that has killed millions of ash trees in North America. Currently, effective options for individual tree protection are limited to systemic insecticides, in particular neonicotinoids, which have come under increased scrutiny for their nontarget effects. In this study, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) trees were treated with two neonicotinoid insecticides, imidacloprid and dinotefuran, at full and half label rates based on trunk diameter to evaluate residues and efficacy. Analyzing the leaf, stem, and root tissues, there was no difference in insecticide residues between application rates within each tissue type. However, there were significantly higher residues of imidacloprid in root tissue compared to other plant tissues, and dinotefuran applied at the full label rate resulted in lower residues in stem phloem tissue. Additionally, insecticide-treated stems were artificially infested with EAB eggs to measure larval success (survival and growth). EAB larvae consumed less phloem in treated trees compared to untreated controls. These findings suggest that, in small-diameter ash, lower than label-recommended doses may be a viable component of an integrated management plan for EAB.

Keywords
  • Agrilus planipennis
  • Dinotefuran
  • Fraxinus
  • Imidacloprid

INTRODUCTION

Listen

Emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae), an invasive pest of forest, shade, and ornamental ash (Fraxinus spp.), has caused extensive tree mortality throughout its invaded range in North America (USDA APHIS 2020) and is expected to have caused $10 billion in losses by the year 2019 (Kovacs et al. 2011).

EAB has a one- or two-year life cycle, depending on latitude (Herms and McCullough 2014). In summer, adults mate and each female oviposits about 70 eggs on stems and large branches of ash hosts (Rutledge and Keena 2012). Eggs hatch and larvae feed on phloem, creating serpentine galleries beneath the bark (Figure 1a). Mature larvae overwinter before pupating and emerging as adults the following or subsequent summer (Cappaert et al. 2005). When beetle populations are high, larval feeding girdles trees and causes rapid tree mortality (Herms and McCullough 2014)(Figure 1b).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Emerald ash borer larvae feed on phloem beneath bark, creating (a) serpentine galleries that expand as the larvae grow that (b) eventually coalesce and completely girdle infested trees.

All North American ash are susceptible to EAB colonization (Liu et al. 2007), though white and green ash (F. americana and F. pennsylvanica) are highly preferred, and blue ash (F. quadrangulata) has some putative resistance (Tanis and McCullough 2012; Spei and Kashian 2017). In the eastern US, ash trees are a significant component of wildland forests (Wharton and Barbour 1973) and are also prevalent as street, park, and landscape trees. Because of its pervasiveness, efforts at EAB management in the USA have focused on classical biological control (Duan et al. 2012; Duan et al. 2013). Four hymenopteran parasitoids, Spathius agrili (Braconidae), S. galinae (Braconidae), Tetrastichus planipennisi (Eulophidae), and Oobius agrili (Encyrtidae), discovered in EAB’s native range of China, have been intensively screened and are now laboratory reared in the USA for incorporation into biological control releases throughout the invaded range. Additionally, endemic natural enemies have been recruited to EAB-invaded forests and may be helping to suppress EAB populations (Duan et al. 2013; Davidson and Rieske 2016; Savage and Rieske 2018).

Classical biological control has had some success suppressing EAB populations (Duan et al. 2011) and has also been deployed in concert with chemical suppression, again with some success. In theory, interspersing insecticide-protected trees throughout an EAB-infested area could facilitate establishment of introduced biological control agents and lead to slower ash mortality (McCullough and Mercader 2012; Davidson and Rieske 2016; Graziosi and Rieske 2017). However, the only way to assure complete protection of individual trees of North American ash from EAB is through chemical means (McCullough et al. 2011).

Following the initial discovery of EAB in the USA, numerous insecticides were screened for efficacy against both larval and adult EAB (McCullough et al. 2005; Herms et al. 2009). Emamectin benzoate, an avermectin derivative applied through trunk injections at approximately 2- to 3-year intervals, is considered the gold standard (Smitley et al. 2010); injections protect trees and cause up to 100% EAB mortality. However, some formulations of emamectin benzoate are restricted use insecticides, require specialized equipment to apply, and are expensive.

As alternatives, imidacloprid or dinotefuran applied as a soil drench, trunk spray, or foliar spray have been employed. Imidacloprid is metabolized by plants into byproducts with varying toxicities (Nauen et al. 1998), including imidacloprid olefin and dihydroxy imidacloprid. Imidacloprid metabolites have demonstrated efficacy against some pests with piercing sucking mouthparts, including aphids (Nauen et al. 1998) and adelgids, and is found in eastern hemlock trees (Tsuga canadensis) treated for hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsuga)(Coots et al. 2013; Eisenback et al. 2014; Benton et al. 2016). Imidacloprid olefin in particular persists in treated hemlock and is highly toxic against hemlock woolly adelgid, whereas dihydroxy imidacloprid is transitory and appears unimportant for insect control in the hemlock system (Benton et al. 2016). While imidacloprid translocation has been well studied in the hemlock woolly adelgid–hemlock system (Cowles 2009; Coots et al. 2013; Eisenback et al. 2014; Benton et al. 2016), gymnosperms as a group use tracheids exclusively, rather than tracheids and vessels, for transport (Sperry et al. 2006). Thus, movement of imidacloprid and its metabolic byproducts through ash, an angiosperm, is expected to differ from its movement through hemlock, a gymnosperm.

Imidacloprid and dinotefuran do not provide the same level of tree protection against EAB as emamectin benzoate trunk injections, but both can provide adequate protection when applied annually (Herms et al. 2009; Smitley et al. 2015). They require no specialized equipment, are more accessible, and therefore are widely used. These chemicals are translocated to the foliage, where adult EAB encounter them as they feed prior to mating and oviposition (Mota-Sanchez et al. 2009), but surprisingly little is known about which ash plant tissues concentrate or retain these chemicals following treatments (but see Harrell 2006; Mota-Sanchez et al. 2009; Tanis et al. 2012).

Application rates and treatment frequency necessary for tree protection against EAB vary and are influenced by season, tree size, canopy condition, site and soil conditions, and overall tree health (Smitley et al. 2015). Consequently, there is some confusion among homeowners and tree care specialists as to optimal application rates and frequency.

Unfortunately, as neonicotinoid insecticides, both imidacloprid and dinotefuran are under scrutiny due to concerns over their potential nontarget effects. In particular, the effects of neonicotinoids on honeybees and other pollinators has caused considerable alarm (Copping 2013; Goulson 2013; Vanbergen et al. 2013). Although deployment of imidacloprid soil drenches at label rates and lower for EAB management in forested situations has shown no negative effects on native hymenopteran abundance and diversity (Davidson and Rieske 2016), even short-term exposure to this chemical class could have long-term implications on pollinator colony fitness (Larson et al. 2013; Stanley et al. 2015).

The focus of this study is to evaluate within-plant insecticide distribution and effects on EAB survival for plants treated with imidacloprid and dinotefuran, two commonly used chemicals for EAB management. Given the scrutiny that neonicotinoids are under, it is essential that we have a full understanding of how these compounds distribute in the plant following application. Using imidacloprid soil drenches and dinotefuran trunk sprays applied at the full label rate and at half the label rate based on trunk diameter, EAB survival and insecticide residues within ash tissue were measured. Specifically, the objectives were to: (1) assess insecticide concentrations in various plant tissues 5 weeks following application; (2) assess insecticide concentrations in trees receiving applications at the full and half label rates based on trunk diameter; and (3) evaluate any differences in EAB survival and phloem consumption.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Listen

This work was conducted at Taylor Fork Ecological Area, a 24.3 ha abandoned pasture in Madison County, KY, situated at the interface of the outer Bluegrass and eastern Knobs regions of Kentucky. Ash thrive on the moist and fertile soils that predominate in the Bluegrass region (Campbell 1989) and were historically a significant component of these forests (Wharton and Barbour 1973). Taylor Fork is owned and administered by Eastern Kentucky University and is characterized by open cane fields, trees in fencerows, small patches of early- to mid-succession woodlands, and sporadically occurring, large, open-grown trees with areas of dense regeneration. At the onset of the study, EAB was present in Madison County but was not yet reported at Taylor Fork, and ash showed no signs of EAB-induced stress. In summer 2016, the large ash at Taylor Fork were treated prophylactically with bark sprays of dinotefuran applied at label rates to protect against EAB.

In spring 2017, 3 discrete sites were established, separated by distinct topographic features and set more than 1,000 m apart. Within each site, 3 plots containing significant green ash regeneration were designated (n = 9 replicates), and in each plot 5 green ash trees (approximately 5 cm diameter at 1.37 m above ground level) were selected for treatment using a randomized block design. On May 9, selected trees in each plot received either: (i) a soil drench (1 L volume) of imidacloprid (Imidacloprid 2F I/T, Prime Source LLC, Evansville, IN, USA) applied at the “full rate” of 2.64 mL/L of water in 0.94 L of total solution, equivalent to 0.64 gai/2.5 cm diameter at 1.37 m, or DBH; (ii) a soil drench (1 L volume) of imidacloprid applied at a “half rate” of 1.32 mL/L of water in 0.94 L of total solution, equivalent to 0.32 gai/2.5 cm DBH; (iii) a basal bark spray of dinotefuran (Safari 20SG, Valent, Walnut Creek, CA, USA) applied to runoff (approximately 52 mL) at the “full rate” of 90 g/L of water, or 0.93 gai/2.5 cm DBH; (iv) a basal bark spray of dinotefuran applied to runoff (approximately 52 mL) at a “half rate” of 45 g/L of water, or 0.47 gai/2.5 cm DBH; or (v) an untreated control.

Seven days after treatment, the trees (n = 15 per treatment for a total of 45 trees) were artificially infested with 3 laboratory-reared emerald ash borer eggs at heights of 25 and 50 cm above ground level for a total of 6 eggs per tree. Eggs were screened with fine polyester mesh to prevent predation, and larvae were allowed to hatch and develop for 30 days (Olson and Rieske 2018), after which plant material was processed.

For processing, plants were excavated, roots were clipped and placed in sample bags, and all foliage was removed from a single south-facing branch on each tree. Samples were then stored on ice for transport. In the laboratory, tap water was used to wash soil from roots, followed by rinsing with distilled water. A sample of root tissue < 4 mm in diameter was then designated for chemical analysis of insecticide residues. The main stem of the tree was sectioned, and phloem tissue from the top 12.7 cm was removed for chemical analysis; the remainder was used to evaluate EAB colonization success. Thus, for each experimental tree there were root, stem phloem, and foliar samples to evaluate for insecticide residues, and stem sections to evaluate for EAB colonization.

EAB Colonization

When neonate larval emergence holes were evident, or larval galleries were present on the stem, EAB survival was scored as positive. Larval galleries were measured by tracing transparent film on each stem, then using ImageJ (Rasband 2018) software to quantify the amount of phloem tissue consumed by each larva (Olson and Rieske 2018).

Insecticide Residues

Root, stem phloem, and foliar tissues were processed within 24 hours of harvest. Plant tissue was placed in liquid nitrogen and ground into a powder with a mortar and pestle and stored at −20 °C prior to analysis. For analysis, a 1:10 ratio of plant tissue to acetonitrile is placed on a rotary table for extraction over 24 hours, after which approximately 300 μL is filtered through a 0.2 μm PTFE syringe filter directly into an autosampler vial for analysis using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Imidacloprid and its metabolites, and dinotefuran, were quantified at Villanova University Department of Chemistry using a Shimadzu Prominence HPLC (Shimadzu, Colombia, MD, USA) with a Phenomenex Gemini NX C-18 column (5 μm particle, 4.6 mm ID, 250 mm in length) fitted with a corresponding Gemini guard column using a 10 μL injection volume. The aqueous phase was 10 mM ammonium formate in water, and the organic phase was 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile. Mass spectrometry was performed using a positive electrospray ionization mode; multiple reaction monitoring transitions were used for optimization. Limits of detection (LOD) were 1.36 ppb for imidacloprid, 1.41 ppb for imidacloprid olefin, 6.69 ppb for dihydroxy imidacloprid, and 0.43 ppb for dinotefuran.

Statistical Analysis

For analysis, samples with concentrations of dinotefuran less than the limits of detection (LOD < 0.43) were considered left censored observations and thus were analyzed by the Cox proportional hazards model. However, the Cox model can only handle right censoring, so dinotefuran concentrations, y, were transformed using y*= 40 – y. The choice of 40 is arbitrary, but is chosen so that y* > 0. Therefore, a y that was left censored becomes right censored under the transformation y*, where now an observation is right censored if y* > 39.57. The Cox model was then fit to y* by site, plot, treatment, tissue type, and the interaction of treatment by tissue. The goodness of fit was assessed by the Cox-Snell and Schoenfeld residuals. Tissue samples of imidacloprid olefin were handled similarly using LOD < 1.41, except that the stem tissue was removed from the analysis due to a high percentage of censored observations. Both analyses were conducted in PROC PHREG (SAS 9.3, SAS Institute Inc. 2011). Dihydroxy imidacloprid was also not analyzed due to the number of missing values. Finally, imidacloprid concentrations were log transformed due to right-skewness. Imidacloprid concentrations had no censoring and were analyzed via a mixed model ANOVA using Proc GLIMMIX, where treatment, tissue type, and treatment by tissue type were designated as fixed effects, and site and plot were designated as random effects. The data for EAB larval phloem consumption have many zeroes, and the residuals of a linear regression are not normally distributed, so a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate differences in EAB larval phloem consumption among the 5 treatments using Proc NPAR1WAY. Pairwise differences were assessed using the Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method.

RESULTS

Listen

Residue concentrations in trees treated with the full rate of imidacloprid were above the limit of detection (1.36 ppb), and ranged from 8.77 ppb to 567 ppb. For trees receiving the half rate, imidacloprid residues ranged from 1.83 to 598 ppb. Concentrations of the metabolite imidacloprid olefin ranged from below the limit of detection (1.41 ppb) to 142 ppb in trees receiving the full rate of imidacloprid; trees receiving the half rate had imidacloprid olefin concentrations ranging from 1.41 (the LOD) to 17.3 ppb. Of the imidacloprid-treated trees (full and half rate), 17 had imidacloprid olefin levels above the limit of detection, including 9 leaf tissue samples, 6 root tissue samples, and 3 stem tissue samples. The range of the metabolite dihydroxy imidacloprid was below the limit of detection (6.69) to 18.9 ppb for trees receiving a full rate, and 6.69 (the LOD) to 16.3 ppb for trees receiving the half rate. Only 2 of the full rate and 2 of the half rate imidacloprid-treated trees had dihydroxy imidacloprid concentrations above the limit of detection, in leaf tissue and root tissue, respectively.

Imidacloprid residues differed significantly based on treatment (full or half application rate) and on tissue type (leaves, stems, or roots), and there was no significant treatment × tissue interaction (Table 1a). Residues of the metabolite imidacloprid olefin did not differ based on treatment or on tissue type, and again, there was no interaction (Table 1b). The metabolite dihydroxy imidacloprid was below the LOD and so was not analyzed.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Analysis of insecticide residues in parts per billion (ppb) 5 weeks post-treatment in leaf, stem, and root tissues of ash trees treated with (a) imidacloprid applied as a soil drench at full rate (2.64 mL/L H2O) and half rate (1.32 mL/L H2O), its metabolite (b) imidacloprid olefin, and (c) dinotefuran applied as a trunk spray at full rate (90 g/L H2O) and half rate (45 g/L H2O).

Root tissue from trees treated with a soil drench of imidacloprid contained over 7 times the residue found in leaf tissue, regardless of application rate, and although leaf and stem tissue did not differ statistically, leaf tissue contained 3 to 5 times higher residues than did stem tissue, again regardless of application rate (Table 2a).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Insecticide residue in parts per billion (ppb)(raw mean [SE]) in ash foliage, stem, and root tissues 5 weeks following application of (a) imidacloprid applied as a soil drench at full rate (2.64 mL/L H2O) and half rate (1.32 mL/L H2O)(means within columns followed by the same letter do not differ) and (b) dinotefuran applied as a bark spray at full rate (90 g/L H2O) and half rate (45 g/L H2O)(n = sample size used to calculate raw means, where values below the limits of detection have been dropped from calculations).

For dinotefuran, 33 of the 55 samples had residue concentrations above the limit of detection (0.43 ppb), ranging from 0.47 to 33.3 ppb. Of the 18 leaf and 18 root samples, 16 had measureable dinotefuran residues. Of the stem samples, only 2 had dinotefuran residues above detectable limits.

In contrast to imidacloprid, dinotefuran applied at full or half rates resulted in no significant differences in residues 5 weeks post-application (Table 1c). There were, however, significant differences based on tissue type, but no interaction between the two factors.

Dinotefuran applied as a trunk spray at the full rate resulted in significantly higher residues in both leaf and root tissue relative to stem tissue; leaves and roots of dinotefuran-treated trees contained over 40 times the residues found in stem tissue. Dinotefuran applied at the half rate was similar (Table 2b).

Phloem tissue consumption by EAB larvae in treated trees was lower than in untreated trees, regardless of chemical insecticide and application rate (χ2 = 26.26; df = 4; P < 0.0001)(Figure 2). Trees treated with either insecticide applied at either the full or half label rates had significantly lower EAB phloem consumption relative to the untreated controls, but there were no differences among treated trees (Table 3).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Phloem tissue consumed (mm2, mean + SE) by EAB larvae developing in green ash trees treated with imidacloprid and dinotefuran applied at full and half strength (ImidFull, ImidHalf, DinoFull, DinoHalf) and untreated controls. Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test (χ2 = 26.26; df = 4; P < 0.0001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Comparison of larval EAB phloem consumption on trees treated with imidacloprid applied as a soil drench at full rate (2.64 mL/L H2O) and half rate (1.32 mL/L H2O) and dinotefuran applied as a bark spray at full rate (90 g/L H2O) and half rate (45 g/L H2O) relative to untreated controls.

DISCUSSION

Listen

Systemic neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid and dinotefuran, have been used extensively in agricultural settings since the 1990s (Elbert et al. 2008; Jeschke and Nauen 2008) and have also been employed against tree pests (Ahern et al. 2005; Cowles 2009; Faulkenberry et al. 2012), including the emerald ash borer (Herms et al. 2009; Smitley et al. 2015). However, neonicotinoid use is facing public and regulatory scrutiny with concerns over pollinator conservation (Godfray et al. 2014; Karahan et al. 2015; Stanley et al. 2015), human toxicity (Cimino et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2018; and references therein), and environmental contamination (Morrissey et al. 2015; Wood and Goulson 2017; Hladik et al. 2018) stemming from potential misuse and overuse in both agricultural systems and urban landscape care. Given their utility in managing landscape and agricultural pests, prudent stewardship of these useful insecticides is essential, and understanding the chemicals’ behavior within plant tissues is key to this stewardship.

In this study, within-plant distribution of two neonicotinoids used for emerald ash borer management, imidacloprid and dinotefuran, applied at two rates (full and half), were evaluated in green ash, a common urban and forest tree. Five weeks following conventional application (soil drenching for imidacloprid and basal bark spray for dinotefuran), insecticide residues were analyzed in leaf, stem, and root tissue of small green ash trees (< 5 cm DBH) to determine where these compounds are retained following application and their relative efficacy for EAB suppression.

Within-plant movement of insecticide depends on several factors, including concentration, solubility, tree size, soil moisture, and timing of application (Jeschke and Nauen 2008; McCullough et al. 2011; Faulkenberry et al. 2012; Coots et al. 2013). Additionally, tree health affects insecticide translocation; disrupted vascular tissue, due either to insect infestation or other factors, can compromise insecticide uptake. Similarly, the effects of these neonicotinoids on insect survival and development also depends on several factors. Again, insecticide concentration is key, as is temperature. Temperature affects insect development rate, and therefore the length of time the insects are exposed to toxins, which is important, as both acute and chronic effects of neonicotinoids play a role (McCullough et al. 2007; McCullough et al. 2011; Poland et al. 2016). Woody plants translocate neonicotinoids from the point of application to the leaves, where they act as strong antifeedants (Tanis et al. 2012; Poland et al. 2016). In addition to functioning as antifeedants, both imidacloprid and dinotefuran are lethal to EAB larvae if present at sufficiently high concentrations (Herms et al. 2009; Smitley et al. 2015; Poland et al. 2016).

Plants metabolize imidacloprid into the byproducts imidacloprid olefin and dihydroxy imidacloprid with varying toxicities (Nauen et al. 1998). There were high levels of imidacloprid olefin in the imidacloprid-treated green ash in this study where the compound could be encountered by feeding beetles, and if so, would contribute to suppression. In contrast, dihydroxy imidacloprid was below detectable levels in most of our samples, suggesting that it is a transitory compound that may be inconsequential for EAB suppression in green ash, similar to its role in the hemlock woolly adelgid–hemlock system (Benton et al. 2016).

At both application rates in this study (full vs. half), imidacloprid residues in leaf and root tissues exceeded the LC50s determined by Poland et al. (2016) for second and third instar EAB larvae reared on artificial diet in a laboratory study, and in stem tissue equaled the LC50 when applied at the full rate (Table 2). Residues of imidacloprid were concentrated in green ash roots at the point of application relative to leaves and stems, regardless of the application rate. The high concentrations remaining in root tissues suggests that translocation to foliar tissues was incomplete after 5 weeks. Nevertheless, imidacloprid was found in leaves and stems in concentrations adequate to cause EAB mortality (Poland et al. 2016). EAB larvae in imidacloprid-treated trees consumed measurable amounts of phloem, suggesting both chronic and acute toxicity. Given that EAB suppression using imidacloprid requires annual applications (Herms et al. 2009; McCullough et al. 2011), these data suggest that lower rates may be efficacious for EAB suppression, at least for small-diameter trees. This point warrants further study.

Residues of dinotefuran did not differ based on application rate, but there were differences in residue concentrations between plant tissues. Dinotefuran was applied to the stem as a basal bark spray and was effectively and rapidly transported to leaf and root tissues where it was found in roughly equal amounts (Table 2). This rapid translocation is due, in part, to its solubility, which at 39.8 g/L (EPA 2004) is considerably more soluble than imidacloprid (0.61 g/L, NPIC 2017). Dinotefuran residues in stem tissue were lower than the LC50 of 30 ppb determined by Poland et al. (2016) and were below the limits of detection in all but one sample. Nevertheless, EAB gallery formation was minimal, and no larvae were recovered, suggesting that neonate larvae succumbed very rapidly to acute dinotefuran toxicity.

Although this was a short-term study utilizing small trees, and foliage from only one branch per tree was evaluated, both neonicotinoid insecticides tested were translocated to foliar tissue, regardless of the rate of application (full or half rate). Residual concentrations present in plant tissue 5 weeks post-application did not differ between doses. Additionally, insecticides applied at the half rate effectively reduced larval EAB phloem consumption relative to untreated controls (Figure 2 and Table 3). These findings suggest that, for trees of the size used in this experiment, reduced rates of neonicotinoids may be efficacious as a management strategy for EAB, may reduce the risk of nontarget concerns, and may allow more trees to be treated in a given area. Clearly more research is warranted. Landscape managers, tree care specialists, and homeowners utilizing these products as components of an EAB management plan could reduce costs, minimize environmental exposure, and potentially reduce unwanted collateral damage by reducing insecticide application rates. These findings can assist land managers in making more informed decisions about ash protection as the emerald ash borer continues to devastate urban forests and landscape plants in North America.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Listen

The authors thank Eastern Kentucky University for allowing us to conduct this project and access sampling sites at Taylor Fork Ecological Area. We also thank Katherine Hagan, Mitch Hughes, Beth Kyre, Hannah Moore, and Samuel Rivers for assistance with field and laboratory work. Anthony Lagalante (Villanova University) analyzed plant tissue samples. Matthew Rutledge and Eva Loveland assisted with the statistical analyses. Kenneth Haynes and Daniel Potter provided feedback on early versions of the manuscript. This is publication number 18-08-060 of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station and is published with the approval of the director. This work is supported by the Kentucky Division of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service through a Landscape Scale Restoration Grant, and by McIntire Stennis Funds under 2351197000.

Footnotes

Listen
  • Conflicts of Interest:

    The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

  • © 2020, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

LITERATURE CITED

Listen
  1. ↵
    1. Ahern RG,
    2. Frank SD,
    3. Raupp MJ
    . 2005. Comparison of exclusion and imidacloprid for reduction of oviposition damage to young trees by periodical cicadas. Journal of Economic Entomology. 98:2133-2136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Benton E,
    2. Grant J,
    3. Cowles R,
    4. Webster J,
    5. Nichols R,
    6. Lagalante A,
    7. Coots C
    . 2016. Assessing relationships between tree diameter and long-term persistence of imidacloprid and olefin to optimize imidacloprid treatments on eastern hemlock. Forest Ecology and Management. 370:12-21.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Rink G,
    2. Budelsky C
    1. Campbell JJ
    . 1989. Historical evidence of forest composition in the Bluegrass region of Kentucky. In: Rink G, Budelsky C, editors. Proceedings of the 7th central hardwood forest conference; 5–8 March 1989; Carbondale, IL, USA. St. Paul (MN, USA): USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NC-135. p. 231-246.
  4. ↵
    1. Cappaert D,
    2. McCullough DG,
    3. Poland TM,
    4. Siegert NW
    . 2005. Emerald ash borer in North America: a research and regulatory challenge. American Entomologist. 51:152-163.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Cimino AM,
    2. Boyles AL,
    3. Thayer KA,
    4. Perry MJ
    . 2017. Effects of neonicotinoid pesticide exposure on human health: a systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives. 125:155-162.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Coots C,
    2. Lambdin P,
    3. Grant J,
    4. Rhea R
    . 2013. Spatial and temporal distribution of residues of imidacloprid and its insecticidal 5-hydroxy and olefin and metabolites in eastern hemlock (Pinales: Pinaceae) in the southern Appalachians. Journal of Economic Entomology. 106:2399-2406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Copping L
    . 2013. Bees and neonicotinoids: the story continues. Outlooks on Pest Management. 24:109-119.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Cowles RS
    . 2009. Optimizing dosage and preventing leaching of imidacloprid for management of hemlock woolly adelgid in forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 257:1026-1033.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Davidson W,
    2. Rieske LK
    . 2016. Establishment of classical biological control targeting emerald ash borer is facilitated by use of insecticides with little effect on native arthropod communities. Biological Control. 101:78-86.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Duan JJ,
    2. Bauer LS,
    3. Abell KJ,
    4. Lelito JP,
    5. Van Driesche R
    . 2013. Establishment and abundance of Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in Michigan: potential for success in classical biological control of invasive emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 106:1145-1154.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Duan JJ,
    2. Bauer LS,
    3. Abell KJ,
    4. Van Driesche R
    . 2012. Population responses of hymenopteran parasitoids to the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in recently invaded areas in north central United States. Biocontrol. 57:199-209.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Duan JJ,
    2. Oppel CB,
    3. Ulyshen MD,
    4. Bauer LS,
    5. Lelito J
    . 2011. Biology and life history of Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a larval endoparasitoid of the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). The Florida Entomologist. 94:933-940.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Eisenback BM,
    2. Salom SM,
    3. Kok LT,
    4. Lagalante AF
    . 2014. Impacts of trunk and soil injections of low rates of imidacloprid on hemlock woolly adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) and eastern hemlock (Pinales: Pinaceae) health. Journal of Economic Entomology. 107:250-258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Elbert A,
    2. Haas M,
    3. Springer B,
    4. Thielert W,
    5. Nauen R
    . 2008. Applied aspects of neonicotinoid uses in crop protection. Pest Management Science. 64:1099-1105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. EPA
    . 2004. Pesticides fact sheet for dinotefuran. Washington (DC, USA): Environmental Protection Agency, National Service Center for Environmental Publications. [Accessed 2019 August]. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100BIDI.PDF?Dockey=P100BIDI.pdf
  16. ↵
    1. Faulkenberry MS,
    2. Culin JD,
    3. Jeffers SN,
    4. Riley MB,
    5. Bridges WC
    . 2012. Efficacy of imidacloprid and dinotefuran applied as soil drenches or trunk sprays for managing Adelges tsugae (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) on mature hemlock trees in a forest. Journal of Entomological Science. 47:369-374.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Godfray HCJ,
    2. Blacquière G,
    3. Field LM,
    4. Hails RS,
    5. Petrokofsky G,
    6. Potts SG,
    7. Raine NE,
    8. Vanbergen AJ,
    9. McLean AR
    . 2014. A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 281:20140558.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Goulson D
    . 2013. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Applied Ecology. 50:977-987.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Graziosi I,
    2. Rieske LK
    . 2017. The battle plan: defining a strategy to manage the emerald ash borer in Kentucky forests. Kentucky Woodlands Magazine. 11:21-22.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Harrell M
    . 2006. Imidacloprid concentrations in green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) following treatments with two trunk-injection methods. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 32:126-129.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Herms DA,
    2. McCullough DG
    . 2014. Emerald ash borer invasion of North America: history, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual Review of Entomology. 59:13-30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Herms DA,
    2. McCullough DG,
    3. Smitley DR,
    4. Sadof CF,
    5. Williamson RC,
    6. Nixon PL
    . 2009. Insecticide options for protecting ash trees from emerald ash borer. Urbana (IL, USA): National IPM Center. 12 p.
  23. ↵
    1. Hladik ML,
    2. Main AR,
    3. Goulson D
    . 2018. Environmental risks and challenges associated with neonicotinoid insecticides. Environmental Science & Technology. 52:3329-3335.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Jeschke P,
    2. Nauen R
    . 2008. Neonicotinoids—from zero to hero in insecticide chemistry. Pest Management Science. 64:1084-1098.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Karahan A,
    2. Cakmak I,
    3. Hranitz JM,
    4. Karaca I,
    5. Wells H
    . 2015. Sublethal imidacloprid effects on honey bee flower choices when foraging. Ecotoxicology. 24:2017-2025.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Kovacs KF,
    2. Mercader RJ,
    3. Haight RG,
    4. Siegert NW,
    5. McCullough DG,
    6. Liebhold AM
    . 2011. The influence of satellite populations of emerald ash borer on projected economic costs in U.S. communities, 2010–2020. Journal of Environmental Management. 92:2170-2181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Larson JL,
    2. Redmond CT,
    3. Potter DA
    . 2013. Assessing insecticide hazard to bumble bees foraging on flowering weeds in treated lawns. PLoS ONE. 8:e66375.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Liu H,
    2. Bauer LS,
    3. Miller DL,
    4. Zhao T,
    5. Gao R,
    6. Song L,
    7. Luan Q,
    8. Jin R,
    9. Gao L
    . 2007. Seasonal abundance of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) and its natural enemies Oobius agrili (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in China. Biological Control. 42:61-71.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Mastro V,
    2. Lance D,
    3. Reardon R,
    4. Parra G
    1. McCullough DG,
    2. Cappaert DL,
    3. Poland TM,
    4. Lewis P,
    5. Molongowski J
    . 2007. Evaluation of neonicotinoid insecticides applied as trunk sprays. In: Mastro V, Lance D, Reardon R, Parra G, editors. Proceedings of the emerald ash borer and Asian longhorned beetle research and technology development meeting; 29 October – 2 November 2006; Cincinnati, OH, USA. Morgantown (WV, USA): USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. FHTET-2007-04. p. 52-54.
  30. ↵
    1. McCullough DG,
    2. Mercader RJ
    . 2012. Evaluation of potential strategies to SLow Ash Mortality (SLAM) caused by emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis): SLAM in an urban forest. International Journal of Pest Management. 58:9-23.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. McCullough DG,
    2. Poland TM,
    3. Anulewicz AC,
    4. Lewis P,
    5. Cappaert D
    . 2011. Evaluation of Agrilus planipennis control provided by emamectin benzoate and two neonicotinoid insecticides, one and two seasons after treatment. Journal of Economic Entomology. 104:1599-1612.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Mastro V,
    2. Reardon R
    1. McCullough DG,
    2. Poland TM,
    3. Cappaert DL,
    4. Lewis P,
    5. Molongowski J
    . 2005. Evaluation of trunk injections for control of emerald ash borer. In: Mastro V, Reardon R, compilers. Proceedings of the emerald ash borer research and development meeting; 5–6 October 2004; Romulus, MI, USA. Morgantown (WV, USA): USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. p. 38-39.
  33. ↵
    1. Morrissey CA,
    2. Mineau P,
    3. Devries JH,
    4. Sanchez-Bayo F,
    5. Liess M,
    6. Cavallaro MC,
    7. Liber K
    . 2015. Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: a review. Environment International. 74:291-303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Mota-Sanchez D,
    2. Cregg BM,
    3. McCullough DG,
    4. Poland TM,
    5. Hollinworth RM
    . 2009. Distribution of trunk injected 14C-imidacloprid in ash trees and effects on emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) adults. Crop Protection. 28:655-661.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Nauen R,
    2. Tietjen K,
    3. Wagner K,
    4. Elbert A
    . 1998. Efficacy of plant metabolites of imidacloprid against Mysus persicae and Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae). Pesticide Science. 52:53-57.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    1. NPIC
    . 2017. Imidacloprid Technical Fact Sheet. Corvallis (OR, USA): National Pesticide Information Center. [Accessed 2019 August]. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/imidacloprid.html
  37. ↵
    1. Olson DG,
    2. Rieske LK
    . 2018. Host range expansion may provide enemy free space for the highly invasive emerald ash borer. Biological Invasions. 20:1-11.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Poland TM,
    2. Ciaramitaro TM,
    3. McCullough DG
    . 2016. Laboratory evaluation of the toxicity of systemic insecticides to emerald ash borer. Journal of Economic Entomology. 109:705-716.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Rasband WS
    . 2018. Image J: image processing and analysis in Java. Bethesda (MD, USA): US National Institutes of Health. https://imagej.nih.gov/ij
  40. ↵
    1. Rutledge CE,
    2. Keena MA
    . 2012. Mating frequency and fecundity in the emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Arthropod Biology. 105:66-72.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Savage MB,
    2. Rieske LK
    . 2018. Coleopteran communities associated with forests invaded by emerald ash borer. Forests. 9:69-82.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Smitley DR,
    2. Doccola JJ,
    3. Cox DL
    . 2010. Multiple-year protection of ash trees from emerald ash borer with a single trunk injection of emamectin benzoate, and single-year protection with an imidacloprid basal drench. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 36:206-211.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Smitley DR,
    2. Herms DA,
    3. Davis TW
    . 2015. Efficacy of soil-applied neonicotinoid insecticides for long-term protection against emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 108:2344-2353.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Spei BA,
    2. Kashian DM
    . 2017. Potential for the persistence of blue ash in the presence of emerald ash borer in southeastern Michigan. Forest Ecology and Management. 392:137-143.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Sperry JS,
    2. Hacke UG,
    3. Pittermann J
    . 2006. Size and function in conifer tracheids and angiosperm vessels. American Journal of Botany. 93:1490-1500.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Stanley DA,
    2. Garratt MPD,
    3. Wickens JB,
    4. Wickens VJ,
    5. Potts SG,
    6. Raine NE
    . 2015. Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop pollination services provided by bumblebees. Nature. 528:548-550.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Tanis SR,
    2. Cregg BM,
    3. Mota-Sanchez D,
    4. McCullough DM,
    5. Poland TM
    . 2012. Spatial and temporal distribution of trunk-injected 14C-imidacloprid in Fraxinus trees. Pest Management Science. 68:529-536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tanis SR,
    2. McCullough DG
    . 2012. Differential persistence of blue ash and white ash following emerald ash borer invasion. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42:1542-1550.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. USDA APHIS
    . 2020. Cooperative emerald ash borer project. Washington (DC, USA): US Department of Agriculture. [Accessed 2019 June]. http://www.emeraldashborer.info/documents/MultiState_EABpos.pdf
  49. ↵
    1. Vanbergen AJ,
    2. Baude M,
    3. Biesmeijer JC,
    4. Britton NF,
    5. Brown MJF,
    6. Brown M,
    7. Bryden J,
    8. Budge GE,
    9. Bull JC,
    10. Carvell C,
    11. Challinor AJ,
    12. Connolly CN,
    13. Evans DJ,
    14. Feil EJ,
    15. Garratt MP,
    16. Greco MK,
    17. Heard MS,
    18. Jansen VAA,
    19. Keeling MJ,
    20. Kunin WE,
    21. Marris GC,
    22. Memmott J,
    23. Murray JT,
    24. Nicolson SW,
    25. Osborne JL,
    26. Paxton RJ,
    27. Pirk CWW,
    28. Polce C,
    29. Potts SG,
    30. Priest NK,
    31. Raine NE,
    32. Roberts S,
    33. Ryabov EV,
    34. Shafir S,
    35. Shirley MDF,
    36. Simpson SJ,
    37. Stevenson PC,
    38. Stone GN,
    39. Termansen M,
    40. Wright GA
    . 2013. Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11:251-259.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Wharton ME,
    2. Barbour RW
    . 1973. Trees and shrubs of Kentucky. Lexington (KY, USA): University Press of Kentucky. 582 p.
  51. ↵
    1. Wood TJ,
    2. Goulson D
    . 2017. The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post 2013. Environmental Science & Pollution Research. 24:17285-17325.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Zhang Q,
    2. Li Z,
    3. Chang CH,
    4. Lou JL,
    5. Zhao MR,
    6. Lu D
    . 2018. Potential human exposures to neonicotinoid insecticides: a review. Environmental Pollution. 236:71-81.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 46 (5)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 46, Issue 5
September 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Another Look at Systemic Neonicotinoid Applications for Emerald Ash Borer Suppression
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Another Look at Systemic Neonicotinoid Applications for Emerald Ash Borer Suppression
David G. Olson, Lee H. Townsend, Eric Roemmele, Lynne K. Rieske
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 2020, 46 (5) 347-357; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2020.025

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Another Look at Systemic Neonicotinoid Applications for Emerald Ash Borer Suppression
David G. Olson, Lee H. Townsend, Eric Roemmele, Lynne K. Rieske
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 2020, 46 (5) 347-357; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2020.025
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Using the CSR Theory when Selecting Woody Plants for Urban Forests: Evaluation of 342 Trees and Shrubs
  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Agrilus planipennis
  • Dinotefuran
  • Fraxinus
  • Imidacloprid

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire