Pesticide criticized in bee deaths could also kill birds |

Pesticide criticized in bee deaths could also kill birds

Associated Press
A white-crowned sparrow in southern Ontario stands May 12, 2017, affixed with a lightweight digitally coded radio transmitter. The birds were part of a study that found they are vulnerable to population loss due to a kind of pesticide.

PORTLAND, Maine — Scientists studying a widely used pesticide say even small doses of the chemical can have crippling health effects on migrating birds, and it might be contributing to declines in their overall populations.

The researchers with the University of Saskatchewan are set to publish their research about the insect-killer imidacloprid in the journal Science on Friday. The insecticide is among a class called neonicotinoids that has been widely studied for its health impacts on bees.

The scientists studied white-crowned sparrows that consumed small doses of the pesticide and found that the birds experienced weight loss and delays in migration. Those changes can hinder the birds’ ability to reproduce and survive, and that might be contributing to songbird population declines, said Christy Morrissey, a biology professor at the university and the senior author of the paper.

The paper breaks new ground in the study of pesticide effects on birds because it shows a biological link between the chemicals and their population loss, Morrissey said. More than 70% of North American farmland birds are showing population declines, she said.

“It causatively links a pesticide to something that is really, tangibly negative to birds that is causing their population declines,” Morrissey said. “It’s clear evidence these chemicals can affect populations.”

Farmers use imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids — a class of insecticides chemically related to nicotine — to control pests that can damage crops. Studies have linked neonicotinoids, and imidacloprid specifically, to decreases in survival of honey bees.

The Saskatchewan study shows that the pesticide could be having a major effect in migratory song birds, said Frank Drummond, a University of Maine professor of insect ecology who has studied the impact of neonicotinoids. Drummond, who was not involved in the study, said a major question remains about whether birds are getting exposed to the pesticide during their migration.

The researchers conducted their study by capturing and exposing dozens of sparrows to small doses of the pesticide during a stop on their migration in Canada. They measured the birds’ body composition and affixed a radio transmitter when setting them free.

They found birds that received higher doses of the pesticide ate less food and lost body mass, which meant they stayed at the migration stopover site longer. Migration is a dangerous time for birds, and the delay could result in exposure to predators and less reproductive success, said Nicole Michel, a senior quantitative ecologist with Audubon.

Michel, who was also not involved in the study, said she wouldn’t encourage a ban on neonicotinoids, because that would likely result in more use of other pesticides that could be as harmful or worse. A better outcome would be for farmers to use them more conservatively, she said.

“Instead of spraying and treating all these seeds ahead of time, it would be cost efficient to only treat after outbreaks are observed,” she said.

The key manufacturer of imidacloprid is agrochemical giant Bayer CropScience. David Fischer, chief scientist for pollinator safety for the company, said the study is solid on a toxicological basis. However, he said it’s not representative of the amount of exposure to the pesticide that birds will experience in the wild.

“There’s no support for thinking neonicotinoids are responsible for songbird decline, which they sort of hint at in the study,” he said.

Categories: News | Health Now | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.