This report may not be copied · 2020. 7. 31. · MATACIL 1.8F cage was consistently much higher than in the other cages. A larger proportion of the mortality showed up in the cage

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STUDIES OF THE

IMPACT OF MATACIL® FORMULATIONS ONHONEYBEES AND WILD POLLINATORS,

File Report No. 18. November 1981.

P.D. Kingsbury, B.B. McLeod andK.L. Mortensen

Forest Pest Management InstituteCanadian Forestry ServiceSault Ste. Marie, Ontario

This report may not be copiedand/or distributed without theexpress consent of:

Director

Forest Pest Management InstituteCanadian Forestry ServiceP.O. Box 490

Sault Ste. Marie* OntarioP6A SM7

saknightTypewritten Text39

INTRODUCTION

Aminocarb, a carbamate insecticide marketed under the tradename MATACIL®, has been widely used in spruce budworm, Choristoneurafumiferana Clem., control programs in eastern Canada. Recently a newMATACIL formulation (MATACIL 1.8F) has been developed which does notcontain the solvent nonyl phenol, a component of the old MATACIL 1.8Dformulation which markedly increased its toxicity to fish. MATACIL1.8F can be applied both in oils and as water based sprays, anotheradvantage over former MATACIL formulations. The Environmental ImpactSection of the Forest Past Management Institute conducted fieldstudies in 1981 north of Searchmont, Ontario, to evaluate immediateand short term effects of various MATACIL sprays on domestic honeybees, Apis mellifera L., and wild pollinators native to foreststands. The primary objective of these studies was to determinewhether MATACIL 1.8F poses any greater hazard to pollinators thanMATACIL formulations previously used in Canadian forest insect controlprograms. ,

EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS

Three separate field experiments were carried out-at two weekintervals in July and August of 1981. In each experiment both domestic honeybees and wild pollinators were studied in untreated controlplots and plots treated with MATACIL formulations. Study plots consisted of delineated areas of natural blossom of native wildflowers

selected on the basis of maximum quantity and quality of pollen andnectar sources available, to the extent assessable by visualinspection. In the first two experiments, honeybee colonies wereconfined to 1.5 x 4.6 m treated plots by means of screen cages(Fig. 1) and wild pollinators were studied on uncaged plots of thesame size. In the third experiment, an isolated patch of blossomabout 120 m^ in area was sprayed and honeybees and wild pollinatorsforaging freely within this area were studied in comparison to thoseforaging in an untreated control area 2 km distant.

All treatments were applied using a hand held Micron 'ULVA'Sprayer (Fig. 2). According to the manufacturer's specifications,this ultra-low-volume-applicator is capable of producing a relativelynarrow spectrum of droplet sizes centering around 70 y diameter. Allstudy plots were treated at an application rate equivalent to 350 gAl/ha, twice the seasonal maximum dosage allowable for currently registered MATACIL formulations, in order to accentuate effects anddifferences between the formulations tested. Test solutions were madeup by diluting stock solutions (Table 1) equivalent to the most concentrated field formulations applied operationally (87.5 g Al/haapplied in a total volume of 1.17 L/ha). Sufficient InsecticideDiluent 585 or water was added to give an adequate volume of spray mix

Fig. 1. Honeybee colony set up in a screen cage over anaminocarb treated plot of wildflowers,predominantlyox-eyed daisy. Searchmont,Ontario. July 1981.

Fig. 2. Experimental application of aminocarb to fireweedblossom using a Micron 'IJLVA' sprayer. Searchmont,Ontario. August 1981.

Table 1. Stock solutions of MATACIL formulations used in pollinatorstudies, Searchmont, Ontario 1981.

MATACIL 1.8D in 585

MATACIL 1.8D 33.3%*

Automate Red Dye 0.5%Insecticide Diluent 585 66.2%

MATACIL 1.8F in 585

MATACIL 1.8F 33.3%

Automate Red Dye 0.5%Insecticide Diluent 585 66.2%

MATACIL 1.8F in water

* by volume.

MATACIL 1.8F 33.3%

Atlox 3409F 1.25%

Rhodamine B Dye 0.5%Water 64.95%

Table 2. Treatments applied to pollinator study plots, Searchmont, Ontario, 14 July to 12 August,1981.

Treatment

Area treated

(m2)Volume applied

(ml)Ratio of stock solution Pollinators

to carrier in applied mix studied

Insecticide Diluent 585

MATACIL 1.8D in 585

MATACIL 1.8F in 585

MATACIL 1.8D in 585

MATACIL 1.8F in 585

MATACIL 1.8F in water**

MATACIL 1.8F in water

Experiment 1-14 July

7* 25 _

7* 25 1:5.1

7* 25 1:5.1

Experiment 2 - 28 July

7 25 1:5.1

7* 25 1:5.1

7* 25 1:5.1

Experiment 3 - 12 August

0 320

«

1:3.6

* two separate plots of this area treated for honeybee and wild pollinator studies.** designated as MATACIL-W in Fig. 6-10.

HB - honeybeeWP - wild pollinators

HB, WPHB, WP

HB, WP

WP

HB, WP

HB, WP

HB, WP

m

(Table 2) to allow for complete coverage of the treated plots with thehand held sprayer, which emitted between 40 and 52 ml per minutedepending on the viscosity of the final spray mixture. In Experiment 1, the same volume of Insecticide Diluent 585 alone as of activeingredient sprays was applied to separate plots to look for anyeffects attributable to this carrier oil.

EXPERIMENT 1

METHODS

Weather: Weather data was collected throughout the experimentalperiod utilizing a Heathkit weather station as well as visual observations. Temperatures were measured at the 2 and 10 metre levels.Relative humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed and directions werealso recorded. Precipitation was measured by a tip bucket rain gaugeand cloud cover was estimated. Sunrise during the experimental periodwas 04:40 E.S.T.*

Floral composition: All flowering plants in each plot were countedand identified and percent composition calculated on the basis offlower bearing stems of each species.

Wild pollinator activity: This initial experiment was carried out onplots utilizing the native pollinator pasture of the area. Four 1.5 x4.6 m plots were established and all pollinator visits to them over aten minute.period each hour were recorded.

Honey bees: Screen cages measuring 1.5 x 4.6 x 1.8 m were erectedover patches of native wildflowers the day prior to the application ofthe MATACIL formulations. Honeybee colonies (with attending queen and4 frames of brood) were placed in each cage immediately following eachtreatment. Each hive was fitted with an entrance dead bee box and aO.A.C. (Ontario Agriculture College) designed pollen trap. Plastictrays measuring 28 x 34 cm were placed at the inside corners of eachcage to collect away from hive mortality. Hives were monitored hourlyover a 12 hr period each day for three days.

RESULTS

Floral composition: Eleven species of native wildflowers were inbloom in the study plots during the experimental period. The mostabundant flowering plant common to all plots was the ox-eyed daisy,Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Lecog and Lamotte. Heal-all, Prunellavulgaris L., was present in relatively low numbers on three of thefour plots as was the yellow hawkweed, Hiracium floribundum Wimm. andGrab. The overall floral composition of all experimental plots arepresented in Tables 3 and 4.

* Eastern Standard Time is used exclusively in this report.

Ihbl

e3.

Flo

ral

com

posi

tion

ofex

peri

men

talw

ild

poll

inat

orpl

ots,

Sear

dmon

tare

a,14

-16

July

1981

.

Per

cen

tfl

ow

ersp

ecie

s

Plo

t

Cbcn

eyed

dais

yfe

llow

liawk

ueed

Yarr

owEv

enin

gpr

imro

seG

blde

nrod

Ifea

l-al

lIb

neys

udde

Cln

quef

oll

(hxy

aatth

wun

Biva

oiun

Ach

illea

fyilo

bum

Solid

ago

Hirx

viun

Rasp

berr

yLo

rdae

mCb

onon

fleab

ane

Fbt

enttl

lalex

oant

haun

flovi

bunl

inm

illef

UB

ille

hize

utm

spp.

-ud

gari

eRi

xta

ap.

TQta

rioa

Erig

emn

sp.

acnx

bnai

a

Qmtrol

75

62

585

82

32

MATACIL-

F%

3-

MATACIL-D

79

-1

17

111

1-

115

labl

e4.

Flo

ral

coqx

siti

onof

expe

rim

enta

lIr

aiey

bee

cage

s,Ss

arch

mnt

area

,14

-16

July

1981

.

Ete

rcen

tfl

ower

spec

ies

Ox-

eyed

da

isy

Yel

low

haw

kvee

dY

arro

wP

lot

Cht

yaan

thar

untii

raci

unA

chil

lea

leuo

anth

enm

flon

tun

dtn

mL

llef

uei

lle

58

5o

il

MA

IAO

L-D

MA

Tft

CIL

-F

90

34

85

Gol

denr

odIf

eal-

all

Spre

adin

gEb

gban

eSo

lidag

otti

vaau

nA

chill

easp

p.vu

lgar

isvo

aaaw

fott

m

5

58 8

00

Wild pollinators: Low overnight temperatures (3°C at time oftreatments) caused numerous insects (mainly diptera spp.) to restovernight completely inactive on blossoms and foliage, and these wereimmediately knocked down upon contact with the MATACIL formulatedsprays. Insects resting overnight on the 585 oil plot were notknocked down and became active as air temperatures warmed. Insectactivity in general commenced between 0600 and 0700, as temperaturesincreased into the low teens with clear skies and light winds•Temperatures climbed to the mid 20s by 14:30 (Table 5) and skiesbecame partly cloudy with increasing winds. Diptera became activeearly in the day (Fig. 3A) and foraged mainly for nectar produced bythe ox-eyed daisy, the most abundant flowering plant available.Hymenoptera on the other hand, became active later in the day (Fig.3B) after air temperatures had climbed above the overnight lows andforaged mainly for pollens produced by heal-all and yellow hawkweed.No mortality or additional knockdown was observed beyond that recordedimmediately following the two MATACIL treatments.

Diptera foraging activities on the MATACIL treated plots weresubstantially depressed for 5-7 hours after treatment compared toactivity on the 585 oil treated and untreated control plots(Fig. 3A). Hymenoptera foraging activities were relatively similaron all plots on the day of treatment, with little activity occurringuntil close to mid-day (Fig. 3B). Hot calm weather conditionsprevailed throughout the day after treatment (Table 6) and pollinatoractivity commenced early in the day on all except the MATACIL F plot,where diptera started foraging several hours later than on the otherplots (Fig. 4). A large peak in hymenoptera foraging was recordedaround mid-day on the MATACIL 1.8D plot when a few bumblebees {Bombusspp.) visited all the heal-all bloom on the plot. Hot, calm weatherin the mid-morning of the second day after treatment (Table 7)resulted in high foraging activity on all plots, especially thecontrol (Fig. 5). Complete overcast and rain showers moved into thearea around noon and depressed insect activity on all plots.

Honeybees: No pollen was collected from the traps on the cagedcolonies. Adult bee mortality collected in the hive entrance dead beetrap and the plastic containers in the cage corners was quite low.Mortality is presented in Table 8 as totals for the period of hourlyobservations during the day and as the first reading taken the nextmorning, representing overnite mortality. Mortality patterns werefairly steady within each cage but varied considerably between cages.Mortality in the MATACIL 1.8D cage was consistently somewhat lighterthan in the Insecticide Diluent 585 cage, but mortality in theMATACIL 1.8F cage was consistently much higher than in the othercages. A larger proportion of the mortality showed up in the cagecorners than in the dead bee trap at the hive entrance in the MATACIL1.8F cage, while almost equal numbers of dead bees were found in thetwo locations in the other cages.

CO

HW

T3

O(0rt

H*o

3CO

oo

•8

H-H-t—h-t—H-t—•—t—I—^*>-••—H-H-t-'OOOOOOOOOOOOsjvJOM^LnOi^*"WWMNHh-OOvO*009(»NjNJO\OMjlUl^J>-U)OUOU)OUOUOU)OU)OuOU)OU)OUOWOWOUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

JNUi

4MnatOv«>^J>>U)OiUCOlON)IO|OOHOvO«CsJ^HOOsia>ON>g

H-H-"•—»I—»•—•H-*I--

0\C0000>CMnONHUlvlO^OONO^0^UUi>>JC0Nll0tOHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHHHVONH(0|V)HHHHHH(OH{«HHHCOUIWIO4>.N>OUOOHhOOCTvlUlvOOOWOOoiovo

OO•—o

EdWWWZ

raWWW

2!wzCO

en

OOOOOOOOOOC5H,MI-'I-,I-»I-'H,I-«I-»MI-'

•«g>joooooo««js4cr>oNuioiui4s.wwNM(oa>n>n>n>a>n>n>n>n>n>

VOVOvOvOvOVOVOVDvOvOvOVOvOvOVOVOVOVOVOvOvOVOVOVOVOVOVOVO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVOVOVOOOOO

w•HCOH«•9

to

9

co

•aa>fl>a.

H(D

9*on>ntort

n(0

o

3

a

H-o--.ch-o-

o-o

coo<

9.

or

CO(D0)

oCOhie

H

a*

(0

.

(Dt-1H-(D9Htt>

rtP3

1? •—pi

H»

O

fe1

VO00

o

s

o

(tort

H*O3CO

90rA

™«o

S?

oa E

Co

ntr

ol

58

5o

ilM

ata

cil

-DM

ata

cil

-F

05

00

06

00

07

00

08

00

09

00

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

MO

O1

50

01

60

01

70

0

Tim

eo

fd

ay

90i-

C

top

0

15 z co «4

0

gao

E I'o Fig

.3

.

,««

*—

•,_

._^»

w—

*••

-,_

.^_

•.*

.T

—•—

-•

-*

—-*

*•»

—'•

»~

-—

—-•—

06

00

07

00

08

00

09

00

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

MO

O1

50

01

60

0U

OO

Tim

eo

fd

ay

90rB

240

0)2

0a E

h./n

^r:.

—,•

•••-

1«

-»—

.~

~«

♦-♦-»

i•

IV

.

OSOO

08OJ

0700

0800

OBOO

1000

UOO

1200

1300

MOO

Tim

eo

fd

ay

ISO

O1

60

01

70

0

2«o

0)2

0

E Z'0

N_

/\

<-*

.-

0500

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

HO

O12

0013

00M

OO

1500

lf>

00

Tim

eof

da

y

Wild

pollinator

activity

ontreated

and

control

plots

onthe

day

oftreatment,

Experiment

Searchmont,

Ontario,

14July

1981.

F1,

Table

6.

Weather

data

for

15July,

1981,

MATACIL

flowable

formulations,

experiment-1.

Temperature°C

Wind

(r.p.h)

Time

Cloud

cover

bar.

pressure

(E.S.T.)

2m

10

mspeed

direction

1/10's

(millibars

ofHg)

0645

10

80

-

Clear

971

0730

15

13

1-3

ESE

Clear

971

0830

20

18

1-4

EE

Clear

971

0930

29

24

0-2

ESE

Clear

971

1030

30

27

1-3

ESE

5970

1145

25

24

0-1

E5

970

1230

28

27

6-7'

SSW

5969

1330

28

68

NNW

5969

1400

27

28

0-

6969

1515

27

25

3NE

7968

1630

26

25

3-9

nw

6968

1645

28

27

15-18

NNW

6968

N3

.»40

w

30

0)2

0X

)

E|,o

Co

ntro

l5

85

oil

Ma

tacil

DM

ala

cil-F

OSO

O0

60

00

70

0O

BOO

09

00

10

00

11001200

13

00

1400ISO

O1

60

01700

Tim

eof

da

y

OSOO

0600

0700

OSOO

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

ISOO

1600

IZOO

Tim

eof

da

y

90rB

IjQj»4

0

2*°E5*

i?«4

0

Ei,o

/\

OSOO

0600

07.000800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

MOO

1500

1600

1700

Tim

eof

da

y

T-*

;

*<

*-~

^.

N/

OSO

O0

60

00

70

00

6O

00

90

01

00

01

10

01

20

01

30

0M

OO

ISOO

16

00

17

00

Time

ofday

Fig.

4.

Wild

pollinatoractivityon

treatedand

controlplotson

theday

after

treatment,

Experiment

1.Searchmont,

Ontario,

15July

1981.

lo

14

Table 7. Weather data for 16 July 1981, MATACIL flowable formulations,experiment-1.

Temperature °C Wind (r.p.h)Time Cloud cover bar. m*A£S citt*apressure

(E.S.T.) 2m 10 m speed direction 1/10's (millibars of Hg)

0410 7 8 0 - 6 967

0720 15 15 1 S 6 967

0745 18 17 1 E 7 967

0830 19 20 0-3 E 8 967

0930 28 26 0 E 9 967

0945 28 25 0 E 7 9671020 28 28 1 E 5 967

1045 28 25 5-7 SSE 5 967

1115 33 27 10-12 SSW 6 9661145 26 25 5-7 NNW 6 966

*1215 18 17 0-1 E 10 966

**1245 18 17 4-5 S 10 9671315 20 18 3-5 NNW 10 967

1345 22 21 2-3 S 8 9671415 24 22 2-3 E 9 967

1445 23 21 5-7 S 10 966***1515 23 22 0 SE 10 966

1545 23 21 1-3 S 10 966

* rain

** rain stopped*** light drizzle

90

-A

BO

<7

0U

J

s\

Con

trol

•^

\58

5oi

l£

\M

atacil

-D_

60

O\

Mal

acil

F

^5

0\

xT\

»i2

40'5

W1*

>3

0^^

-•*

'\

/\

.•O

*^»»

*..

'\

'^

<N

j§20

F £,o

0.

••••••

-v—

--•-

--|/

'..;^

05

00

06

00

07

00

06

00

09

00

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

MO

O1

50

01

80

01

70

0

»rC

top

0

0)2

0a E 3

*

Tim

eof

day

/rt

^>tf

Of0

0O

SOO

07

00

08

00

09

00

10

00

H0

01

20

01

30

0M

OO

15

O0

16

00

17

00

Tim

eo

ld

ay

90

S80

£ro

Z UJ 26

0>

-I £

?4

0

E i,o

rB

OSOO

0600

07.00

0800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

MOO

ISOO

1600

1700

Tim

eof

day

90rD

< it"

j240

«

30

0)2

0a E ii

ol

\Y\

/'X

1.

*~

x.v

..v

OSO

O0

60

00

70

00

80

00

90

010

0011

0012

001

30

0M

OO

15

00

I6O

017

00

Time

ofday

Fig.

5Wild

pollinator

activity

ontreated

and

control

plots

onthesecond

day

after

treatment,

Experiment

1.Searchmont,

Ontario,

16July

1981.

Ln

Table 8. Honeybee mortality in caged experimental plots, Searchmont area, 14-16 July 1981

Number of dead bees

585 oil cage MATACIL,-D cage MATACIL--F cage

trap corners trap corners trap corners

day night day night day night day night day night day night

14

15

16

JulyJulyJuly

1 11

7 6

7

2 1

8 8

9

3 3

3 2

0

1 4

1 3

2

31 16

47 6

13

38 42

37 53

13

17

Experiment-2

Methods

Weather: Weather data was collected in the same manner as for thefirst experiment. Sunrise during the second experimental period was04.44 E.S.T.

Floral composition: Four experimental plots were established in thesame fashion as the first experiment. Canada goldenrod, Solidagocanadensis L. was the dominant flowering plant in the area and allother flowering species were removed from the experimental plots inorder to eliminate any pollinator preferences as was experiencedduring the first experiment.

Wild pollinator activity: Activity counts of visiting pollinatorswere carried out in the same manner as was used during the firstexperiment, except a five day census period was employed whichincluded one pre-spray census day and an approximately *§ day census onthe final day.

RESULTS

Wild pollinators: A pre-treatment census was carried out between thehours of 11.00 and 18:00 on 27 July. Weather conditions were quitefavorable early in the day but skies clouded over by 12:00 hours andtemperatures ranged in the low 20fs (Table 9). Insect activity wasrelatively high on the three plots monitored (the MATACIL-1.8D plotnot being established until late in the day could not be censused).Diptera and hymenoptera were the two major groups of foraging insectsactive (Fig. 6).

Weather conditions on the treatment day were highlighted bytemperatures ranging in the mid-teens, a dropping barometric pressureand light winds with rain, starting about 14:00 (Table 10). TheMATACIL treatments were completed by 06:00 and as was recorded duringexperiraent-1, insects resting overnight on foliage or blossoms wereknocked down on contact. Insect activity patterns on all four plotswere similar through the day (Fig. 7). Activity started quite lateand peaked about 14:00, then dropped rapidly at the onset of rain.Insect activity appears to have been affected by both the treatment(activity on sprayed plots somewhat lighter than the untreated) andpoor weather (overall reduction in activity when compared to otherdays). Rain forced the end to monitoring activities after 15:00.


Temperature °C Wind (r.p.h)Time

(E.S.T.)

CI nnH f**WAT* bar. nrocciirp

2m 10 m speed direction l/lO's (millibars of Hg)

0853 18 16 4-5 ENE Clear 977

1200 23 23 1-3 MNE 8 976

1230 22 22 3-4 NNE 9 976

1528 23 23 8-12 W 9 975

1615 22 21 4-10 W 9 975

1636 21 20 6-10 NW 9 975

00

Vh

3ld

GN

3W

AH

aqsjisia

)oja

qiu

nN

ejaaiunN

c<u

eued(1)uu0)MO

»*-l(U>%«J

<U

.£4JCoen

oa•

iHo

oo

ON

U^)

4J

c>

>0

rHa

3»-)

s

ojo

H•U

"H

CO

>-l

§U

xj

aj

co

SeO

**

•4

J

g>

>C

A•U

O

T1

6

•64

JM

is

CO

<U

o4-1.

CO

CN

c•H4

J

fHC

rH

<U

O£

D.tHU

T3

(UtH

D-

r!

x5

w

00

•Hfa

19


Temperature °C Wind (r.p.h)Time hflr- nroociiro

(E.S.T.) 2m 10 m speed direction l/lO's (millibars of Hg)

0600 9 8 0 — 10 972

0730 11 10 0 - 10 972

0945 15 14 2-3 SE 10 972

1030 16 15 2-3 SE 10 971

1100 16 16 1-0 SE 10 971

1230 21 19 2 N 10 971

1518 16 15 3-4 WNW 10 (rain) 970

1645 15 14 3-7 WNW 10 (rain) 970

to

O

a.

ho

•2 *»

E2 «»

Control

Malacil l:

Malacil W

Malacil O

<

oc,w

eO"zUJ

VI

• i m m m m • n • • • • • i i —^— • ' • •• i •

osm onm oroo oooo oooo 1000 una 1200 uoo moo ism iooo i/oo an

liino ol day

Of.dll 00


Temperature °C Wind (r.p.h)Time Cloud cover bar. pressure

(E.S.T.) 2m 10 m speed direction l/10*s (millibars of Hg)

5 0 SE 5 (fog) 9718 1 SE Clear 971

10 5 SE Clear 971

12 3 E Clear 971

17 3 SE Clear 971

19 5-6 SW Clear 971

23 4-5 NW Clear 971

23 7-8 SW Clear 971

23 14-17 SW Clear 971

25 10-15 W Clear 971

25 6-13 W 1 971

25 6-11 W 2 970

24 4-6 MNW Clear 970

24 3-5 SW Clear 971

21 1-2 NE Clear 971

0615 4

0715 7

0730 9

0815 11

0915 21

1015 24

1120 27

1220 24

1245 25

1335 24

1430 24

1524 25

1735 24

1823 25

1905 22

to

o

a ?o I

z w\

(r.m nooo o/no onoo onoo mm nm itihi inon moo two inon inn

limn ol (lay

O

^1-^J ^W^;^a*cmm np«n n/i»i nnnn on«m inmi imiij i?no mm moo chki irijo ti«>

I? in

OTiim nniw> p/im onmi win mhiii nnn i7«i i.iim m


Temperature °C Wind (r.p.h)Time

(E.S.T.)

f*1 s\ii/l /»A\ior bar. pressure

(millibars of Hg)2m 10 m speed directionV#J

1/10's

0600 5 6 0 SE Clear 973

0645 7 8 0 SE Clear 973

0715 10 11 0 E Clear 974

0745 12 13 1-2 SE Clear 974

0815 13 15 0 SE 3 974

0845 16 17 4-5 SE 4 974

0915 25 20 3-6 SW 3 974

0945 28 21 10-11 W 4 974

1030 23 22 4-5 S 6 974

1130 32 26 8-10 SE 6 973

1230 28 26 12-14 NW 7 974

1315 26 26 4-12 W 7 974

1530 26 26 8-11 WNW 7 973

1745 26 25 8-12 WNW 1 973

4>-

a in Q E 2- I c/i (Joo

V)

o E 2-

Oo

nlr

oJ

Ma

lacil

F"

Ma

lacif

-W

Ma

lacil

0

on

imo

ou

io

/no

nu

no

oo

oo

ioo

ou

oo

12

00

i:in

om

oo

iso

uio

oo

i/o

d

lim

oo

ld

ay

oso

oim

iio

oro

on

nn

oo

on

oio

oo

urn

12

00

13

00

mo

ois

no

ifio

oi/

on

J2«

o

E Zto

OSO

IIO

OO

O0

70

0O

On

oO

OO

OIO

OO

11

00

«7

O0

13

00

MO

OIS

OO

IfiO

O1

/00

Tim

eol

da

y

oso

niN

iim

o/m

on

oo

oo

oo

ioo

ou

oo

i2im

ism

mix

iim

mim

ki

i/n

i

lim

eol

day

|im

eo|

l|ay

Fig.

9.Wild

pollinator

activity

ontreated

and

control

plotson

the

second

dayafter

treatment,

Experiment

2.Searchmont,

Ontario,

30July1981.

Ln


Temperature °C Wind (r.p.h)Time PI An/1 nmror bar. pressure

(millibars of Hg)(E.S.T.) 2m 10 m speed direction 1/10's

0600 8 8 0-2 SE Clear 976

0720 12 12 0 SE 8 977

0745 13 13 .0-7 NE 6 977

0827 20 18 0-3 E 4 976

0945 27 25 9-12 SSW 4 976

1021 27 23 5-13 SW 4 975

ON

a.

iij ft 52

«i

£711

O £' Ono

(0 5 o

j^

Co

ntr

ol

~~

Ma

lacilT

-

Mn

lncll

W

Mn

lncll

D

/.*>

mm

on

mi

o/n

nn

nn

no

no

oim

mm

mi7

imin

on

Mim

mm

imm

iru

i

Ilm

oo

fd

ny

•m

r:

nr.

nn

nn

iwn

«m

revm

nn

no

inn

nii

tmi?

rmi.

wu

mo

ois

ou

ro

w«

/«»

i

lim

no

ld

ny

J3*

n

£7

0o E 2

*n

2

nn

O 0J7I

IU E

H

f

i /r

Ji

lj

'»

'i

•'j

!i I

••

I/ 1

•<*

>-

cK

fmn

nn

nn

'mi

nra

mn

nn

oin

nn

mm

i?

w»

:»»

>M

imir

«in

iro

ni/m

lim

no

ld

ny

;>:

£4

xf^

'^^

or.

wn

nn

nn

/nn

nn

nn

nm

min

on

mm

i?im

cu

mM

imim

ot

mm

i/im

Tim

oo

ld

ny

Fig.

10.

Wild

pollinator

activity

ontreated

and

untreated

plots

onthe

third

day

after

treatment,

Experiment

2.Searchmont,

Ontario,

31July

1981.

to

28

Day 3 saw temperatures reach the mid 20's with clear skies(after early morning fog) and winds rising to 15 kph by mid-day (Table11). Insect activity started slowly (Fig. 8) until the low overnighttemperature (4°C at 06:15) started to rise and the low lying fog wasburned off. Temperatures reached the low 20*s by 10:00 resulting inan increase of insect (particularly diptera and hymenoptera) activityon all plots except MATACIL-1.8D.

Day 4 again experienced low overnight temperatures (5°C at06:00) but increased to a high of 32°C by 11:30. Skies were clearearly in the day with partial cloud by 08:30 with generally lightwinds and a rising barometer (Table 12). Insect activity peaked about11:00 but dropped around noon (the temperature high for the day) andthen peaked again around 15:00. Activity patterns were again similarfor all plots but activity levels on the MATACIL-1.8D remained muchlower than on other plots (Fig. 9).

Day 5 had a starting temperature of 8°C at 06:00 which quicklyrose to the high 20*s by 09:45 with partially cloudy skies and lightwinds (Table 13). Monitoring activities were carried out on this theday until activity trends were established. Activity started fairlyearly (08:00) and rose quickly on all plots. Activity counts wereterminated at 10:00 (Fig. 10).

Honeybees: Theft of a honeybee cage and frame immediately before thesecond experiment precluded carrying out a comparison of honeybeecolonies caged in untreated control and MATACIL 1.8D in 585, MATACIL1.8F in 585 and MATACIL 1.8F in water treated plots of goldenrodblossom as was planned. Consequently, the two cages available wereused to compare the effects of the MATACIL 1.8F formulation applied inInsecticide Diluent 585 and in water. An uncaged hive several hundredmetres away from the caged hives was used to document controlmortality at the hive entrance, but was not directly comparable to thetreated hives as bees from this colony could forage in an unlimitedarea on whatever type of blossom they could find, not just goldenrod.

Honeybee mortality over the second experiment is presented inTable 14. Total mortality measured at the hive entrance over thestudy was quite similar for the three hives (48 for MATACIL 1.8F inwater, 41 for MATACIL 1.8F in 585, 39 for the untreated control).Total mortality in the corners of the MATACIL 1.8F in water cage was,however, much higher than in the MATACIL 1.8F in 585 cage (187 versus48).

Table 14. Honeybee mortality in caged experimental plots, Searchmont area,28-30 July, 1981.

number of dead bees

MATACIL-F in H20 MATACIL-F in 585 Control*

entrance corners entrance corners entrance

Date day night day night day night day night day night

28 July 11 2 53 29 2 2 8 14 2 729 July 15 3 65 4 7 5 12 3 11 330 July 15 2 28 8 21 4 7 4 13 3

* uncaged colony some distance from treated plots.

30

Experiment-3

METHODS

The third experiment was carried out in a recently logged-overarea where patches of fireweed, Epilobium augustifoliae L., had colonized the disturbed soils. Two areas of blossom were selected for

pollinator monitoring. One. chosen as the treatment site, covered anarea of approximately 120 nr while a somewhat smaller area about 4 kmdistant served as the untreated control site. Wild pollinators weremonitored in much the same fashion as in experiments 1 and 2, with theaddition of ten "knockdown containers" being placed under fireweedblossom on the ground throughout both plots to collect any mortality.Single colonies of honeybees were placed at each location just priorto treatment. The treatment colony was placed in the middle of thesprayed patch of fireweed bloom and was virtually isolated from anyother nearby pollen source by surrounding thick growth of poplarsaplings. The control hive had to be placed a short distance from thefireweed bloom where wild pollinator and knockdown studies werecarried out, and had other patches of fireweed and fall asters, Asterspp. * in the immediate vicinity.

RESULTS

Wild pollinators: Prespray monitoring of both treated and untreatedfireweed bloom indicated similar wild pollinator activity patterns(Fig. 11). Bumblebees (Bombus spp.) accounted for most of the wildpollinator visits on the treated plot and a large portion of the totalpollinators visiting fireweed on the untreated plot. MATACIL 1.8F inwater was applied between 7:10 and 7:30 EST 12 July, while a lightground fog covered the area. Warming temperatures burned the fog offby 10:00 and sunny skies prevailed until 13:00, when clouds moved intothe area. Bombus spp. became active quite early in the day on bothplots with peak activity recorded around 10:00 (Fig. 12). Species ofhymenoptera other than Bombus did not reach peak activity on theuntreated plot until after Bombus activity had declined. Diptera weremost active early in the morning, then virtually disappeared whilehymenoptera foraged. Honeybees did not locate the untreated fireweedbloom during the monitoring period.

Diptera activity on the treated plot paralleled that recordedon the untreated plot but did not increase towards the end of themonitoring period. Honeybees began to forage in the contaminatedbloom about 10:30 (about the time that the rising temperature burnedoff the ground fog) but did not reach peak activity until after peakBombus activity had declined (a situation similar to on the untreatedplot where hymenoptera other than bumblebees peaked in activity onceBombus activity declined).

400 •

300

200

SlOO

01 i i i • i i i • i, i i i i.8 9 10 II 12 I 2

11 AUGUST

400 -

300

01

'35>200

o

£ 100 •

8 9 to H 12 1 2AM PM

II AUGUST iZ AUGUST 13 AUGUST

Fig. 11. Wild pollinator activity on MATACIL 1.8F and untreatedcontrol plots, Experiment 3. Searchmont, Ontario,11-13 August 1981.

Conlroi •Malacil-F

i i i

8 9 10 11 12 1 2AM CM

12 AUGUST

/]

* / I \

i • i i i

8 9 10 II 12 t 2am r>M

12 AUGUST

'o' 'o-

iA-.• - * • • • • • ' • «

9 10 M 12 1 2AM PM

13 AUGUST

ControlMalacil-F

-or o o

9 10 11 12 1 2AM PM

31

CONTROL

0900 1000 1100

12 AUGUST

™°r8 TREATMENT

>

200

100

Fig. 12.

0900 1000 UOO

12 AUGUST

Activity of various groups of pollinators onthe untreated control and MATACIL 1.8F treatedplots on the day of treatment, Experiment 3.Searchmont, Ontario, 12 August 1981.

, Bombus,-" \ Diptera

\ Hymenon»era

1200

1200

32

1300

1300

33

A large number of insects were collected in knockdown bucketsset out under fireweed blossom in the treated plot. Total knockdowncollected was 81 insects, whereas only one insect, a honeybee, wascollected from the ten buckets set out in the untreated area.

Knockdown consisted mostly of Diptera (78%) along with much smallernumbers of Hemiptera (9%), Hymenoptera (6%) and Araneida (5%). Overhalf the Diptera collected were identified as Fannia 8p. (Muscidae:Fanniinae). One bumble bee was collected in knockdown buckets, andtwo others were found in a distressed state in the treated area withinseveral hours of treatment. Observations made over several hours ofknocked down insects in the buckets suggested that some may havebeen capable of eventually recovering from their poisoning, as theycontinued to be active for many hours and showed some degree ofrecovery towards normal locomotory movements.

Pollinator activity on the study plots the day after treatment(13 August, Fig. 11) did not indicate any differences due to treatment. Considerable fluctuations in activity were apparent, especiallyon the control plot, but these were most likely due to breezyconditions keeping pollinators from foraging during peak gusts ofwind.

Honeybees: A very slight impact to the foraging component of the hivelocated in the treated area is indicated when compared to the hive inthe untreated control. Adult bee mortality was slightly higher at thetreated hive and at the same time pollen collection was slightly lower(Table 15). No dead bees were collected from containers locatedthroughout the treated plot, while a single honeybee was found inknockdown containers set out in the untreated plot.

Table 15. Honeybee mortality and pollen collection from MATACIL flowable formulationtreated and untreated control plots, Searchmont area, 12-13 August 1981.

Treated plot Untreated plot

Mortalityhive entrance field

pollen collected(gms)

Mortality.hive entrance field

pollen collected(gms)

12 Aug.13 Aug.

7

13

0

0

3.91

4.50

3

3

1

0

5.62

19.89

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Aminocarbfs high contact toxicity was demonstrated by theimmediate knockdown of insects, mostly dipterans, present onexperimental plots at the time they were treated with MATACIL 1.8D or1.8F sprays. The speed and magnitude of knockdown observed reflectsthe high treatment rate (350 g Al/ha), and are likely to beconsiderably greater than knockdown effects which would occur atoperational application rates (52 to 87 g Al/ha). A direct relationship between knockdown effects and applied dosage has been shown foraerial applications of MATACIL 1.8D (Kingsbury et al. 1981). When afairly large area was treated with MATACIL 1.8F in the thirdexperiment, knockdown effects were observed on three bumblebees, butthe vast majority of bumblebees present in the area when sprayed orforaging in it shortly after treatment appeared unaffected. Thissuggests that bumblebee mortality due to operational applications ofMATACIL 1.8F at conventional dosage rates would be very light, as hasbeen found with MATACIL 1.8D (Plowright and Rodd, 1980).

The effects of MATACIL treatments on overall wild pollinatoractivity in these experiments were slight. Some short term reductionsin activity are suggested after both MATACIL 1.8D and 1.8F treatments,especially among dipterans, but there is little evidence of effectslasting beyond the day of treatment. Effects of MATACIL 1.8F did notappear to be any greater than MATACIL 1.8D. In the final experimentwhere a fairly large area was treated with MATACIL 1.8F applied inwater, there is virtually no suggestion that wild pollinator activitywas affected despite the observed knockdown of insects and high levelof pollinator activity prior to treatment.

The results of wild pollinator activity studies do demonstratethe important influences of weather patterns, pollen and nectarsources available and competing pollinators present on the activity ofparticular groups of pollinators. Cold air temperatures, brisk windsand rain all suppressed pollinator activity at various times duringthese experiments. In the first experiment, differences in effects ofaminocarb sprays on diptera and hymenoptera seemed to be related todifferences in their choice of blossom foraged on. Diptera mostlyutilized ox-eyed daisies for collecting nectar or resting on(Fig. 13). These blossoms present a large, flat, horizontal surfaceheld upright above the surrounding vegetation, and may present highlycontaminated surfaces to pollinators utilizing them after aninsecticide spray. Hymenoptera foraging activities were directedmainly towards the pollen producing hawkweed and heal-all. Yellowhawkweed bloom closes during the night and the inner surface is wellprotected from early morning spraying. Upon opening, the bloompresents a largely pesticide-free surface upon which to land orforage. Heal-all, being a rather short plant is very often protectedby the foliage of surrounding plants and grasses and the small florets

35

36

'awi'SHi '"v jmwm

Fig. L3. Syrphid fly (DipterarSyrphidae) foraging on an ox-eyed daisy blossom. Searchmont,Ontario. 1981.

may consequently remain relatively pesticide free. The influences ofcompeting groups of pollinators upon one another can be expresseddirectly through scaring or chasing of individuals away from blossoms,or indirectly through depleting pollen and nectar sources so they areno longer attractive to other pollinators. Although the study ofthese interactions is beyond the scope of the present study, theirinfluences are apparent in some of the results obtained. Dipteranactivity often appeared to decrease as hymenoptera activityincreased. The activity of different hymenoptera (bumblebees,honeybees and others) peaked at different times when present together,suggesting they were exerting some influences on the activity ofeach other.

Honeybee colonies caged within MATACIL 1.8F treated plotssuffered higher mortality than control colonies, particularly mortality away from the hive measured in buckets placed in the cagecorners. Several factors suggest, however, that these results may notbe totally due to the insecticide. The mortality observed was gradualover several days, rather than a sharp peak on the day of applicationas has normally been found with insecticide induced mortality inhoneybee colonies in forest situations (Buckner et al. 1974 and 1975,Buckner and McLeod 1975). When a honeybee colony was placed in themiddle of a relatively large MATACIL 1.8F treated area and exposed tothe insecticide through normal foraging activities, mortality withinthe hive was only 10 bees/day, slightly above the control mortality of3 bees/day. This suggests that much of the mortality of caged hivesmay be due to caging effects and stresses. Mortality for differentcaged hives might vary with colony strength, composition (in terras ofage class structure of bees) and food reserves as well as beingdependent on insecticide treatment.

In conclusion, the experiments carried out do not suggest thatMATACIL 1.8F sprays will present any greater hazard to pollinatorsthan MATACIL formulations previously used in Canadian forest insectcontrol programs•

37

38

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The co-operation of the Sault Ste. Marie District staff of theOntario Ministry of Natural Resources in providing experimental areasis gratefully acknowledged. Insecticide materials and support for thisprogram were provided by Chemagro Ltd. W. Cameron, D. Rykeman andR. Hepburn assisted in the collection of field data.

REFERENCES

Buckner, C.H. and B.B. McLeod. 1975. Impact of aerial applicationsof ORTHENE upon non-target organisms. Chemical ControlResearch Institute Information Report C-X-104.

Buckner, C.H., B.B. McLeod and T.A. Gochnauer. 1974. The impact offorest spraying on populations of small forest songbirds,small mammals and honeybees in Menjou Depot Area of Quebec.Chemical Control Research Institute Information ReportCC-X-84.

Buckner, C.H., T.A. Gochnauer and B.B. McLeod. 1975. The impact ofaerial spraying of insecticides on bees. pp. 276-279. InPrebble, M.L. (ed.) Aerial Control of Forest Insects inCanada. Dept. of the Env., Ottawa, Canada.

Kingsbury, P.D., B.B. McLeod and R.L. Millikin. 1981. The environmental impact of nonyl phenol and the MATACIL fomulation.Part 2: Terrestrial ecosystems. Forest Pest ManagementInstitute Report FPM-X-36.

Plowright, R.C. and R.H. Rodd. 1980. The effect of spruce budwormcontrol operations on hymenoptera in New Brunswick. Can.Entomol. 112:259-270.

Introduction, Experimental TreatmentsExperiment 1Experiment 2Experiment 3Discussion and ConclusionsAcknowledgements and References

Documents

This report may not be copied · 2020. 7. 31. · MATACIL 1.8F cage was consistently much higher than in the other cages. A larger proportion of the mortality showed up in the cage