Is there a risk to honeybees from use of thiamethoxam as a sugar beet seed treatment?

The ban imposed by the European Union on the use of neonicotinoids as sugar beet seed treatments was based on the exposure of bees to residues of neonicotinoids in pollen and nectar of succeeding crops. To address this concern, residues of thiamethoxam (TMX) and clothianidin (CTD) were analyzed in soil collected from fields planted in at least the previous year with thiamethoxam-treated sugar beet seed. This soil monitoring program was conducted at 94 sites across Germany in two separate years. In addition, a succeeding crop study assessed residues in soil, guttation fluid, pollen, and nectar sampled from untreated succeeding crops planted in the season after thiamethoxam seed-treated sugar beet at eight field sites across five countries. The overall mean residues observed in soil monitoring were 8.0 ± 0.5 µg TMX + CTD/kg in the season after the use of treated sugar beet seed. Residue values decreased with increasing time interval between the latest thiamethoxam or clothianidin application before sugar beet drilling and with lower application frequency. Residues were detected in guttation fluid (2.0-37.7 µg TMX/L); however, the risk to pollinators from this route of exposure is likely to be low, based on the reported levels of consumption. Residues of thiamethoxam and clothianidin in pollen and nectar sampled from the succeeding crops were detected at or below the limit of quantification (0.5-1 µg a.i./kg) in 86.7% of pollen and 98.6% of nectar samples and, unlike guttation fluid residues, were not correlated with measured soil residues. Residues in pollen and nectar are lower than reported sublethal adverse effect concentrations in studies with honeybee and bumble bee individuals and colonies fed only thiamethoxam-treated sucrose, and are lower than those reported to result in no effects in honeybees, bumble bees, and solitary bees foraging on seed-treated crops. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:709-721. © 2021 SYNGENTA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

New Generation of Resistant Sugar Beet Varieties for Advanced Integrated Management of Cercospora Leaf Spot in Central Europe.

Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) epidemics in sugar beet have been increasing in recent years causing higher use of fungicides. Concomitantly, the availability of effective fungicides is at risk because of resistance development in the fungus, the lack of new active ingredients as well as restrictive approval practices. A key option for an integrated management of CLS is cultivation of resistant varieties. Because of the yield penalty in resistant varieties, acceptance in commercial practice so far has been low. The aim of our study was to characterize recent sugar beet varieties registered in Germany in terms of resistance and tolerance to CLS and their value for integrated pest management. The genetic basis of CLS resistance in varieties is protected by intellectual property rights even after variety registration and not open to the public due to economic competition. To gain reliable data for cultivation, varieties have to be tested for their resistance traits under field conditions at varying levels of infection with Cercospora beticola. In collaboration with variety related stakeholders, 15 sugar beet varieties were tested in 49 field trials in Germany from 2014 to 2016 for their yield response to CLS. The trials were set up in a split-plot design with and without infection (i.e., with and without fungicide). The classification of varietal reaction to CLS is based on symptomatic leaf area (susceptibility) and the resulting relative yield loss (tolerance). Since the relation between both parameters varied among varieties, it was used as an additional parameter to describe tolerance. On this basis, three groups of varieties were identified. They can be characterized as a susceptible, a resistant and a presumably tolerant cluster. A comparison of the data with an older dataset originating from 2009 to 2011 revealed that yield performance of recent varieties with resistance to C. beticola caught up with susceptible varieties due to breeding progress. They showed no yield penalty in the absence of the disease and better economic performance than susceptible varieties. It is assumed that these varieties will allow a substantial reduction of fungicide use for an advanced integrated pest management under central European conditions.

Yield Potential of Sugar Beet - Have We Hit the Ceiling?

The yield of sugar beet has continuously increased in the past decades. The question arises, whether this progress will continue in the future. A key factor for increasing yield potential of the crop is breeding progress. It was related to a shift in assimilate partitioning in the plant toward more storage carbohydrates (sucrose), whereas structural carbohydrates (leaves, cell wall compounds) unintendedly declined. The yield potential of sugar beet was estimated at 24 t sugar ha-1. For maximum yield, sufficient growth factors have to be available and the crop has to be able to fully utilize them. In sugar beet, limitations result from the lacking coincidence of maximum irradiation rates and full canopy cover, sink strength for carbon assimilation and high water demand, which cannot be met by rainfall alone. After harvest, sugar losses during storage occur. The paper discusses options for a further increase in yield potential, like autumn sowing of sugar beet, increasing sink strength and related constraints. It is prospected that yield increase by further widening the ratio of storage and structural carbohydrates will come to its natural limit as a certain cell wall stability is necessary. New challenges caused by climate change and by prolonged processing campaigns will occur. Thus breeding for improved pathogen resistance and storage properties will be even more important for successful sugar beet production than a further increase in yield potential itself.