Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T18:24:49.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive sublethal effects of macrocyclic lactones and synthetic pyrethroids on the dung beetle Onthophagus similis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2019

H. Weaving ,
B. Sands  and
R. Wall
H. Weaving*
Affiliation:
Veterinary Parasitology and Ecology Group, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TQ, UK
B. Sands
Affiliation:
Veterinary Parasitology and Ecology Group, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TQ, UK
R. Wall
Affiliation:
Veterinary Parasitology and Ecology Group, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TQ, UK
*
Author for correspondence: H. Weaving, E-mail: hw14528@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dung-colonizing beetles provide a range of ecosystem services in farmland pasture systems. However, such beetles are declining in Northern temperate regions. This may, in part, be due to the widespread use of macrocyclic lactones (MLs) and synthetic pyrethroids (SPs) in livestock farming. These chemicals are used to control pests and parasites of cattle; the residues of which are excreted in dung at concentrations toxic to insects. While the lethal effects of such residues are well known, sublethal effects are less understood. Any effects, however, may have important consequences for beetle populations, particularly if they affect reproduction. To investigate, the impact of ML and SP exposure on the reproductive output of Onthophagus similis (Scriba), a Northern temperate dung beetle species, was examined. In laboratory trials, field-collected adult O. similis exposed to the ML ivermectin at 1 ppm (wet weight) over a period of 3 weeks had smaller oocytes (p = 0.016), smaller fat bodies and reduced motility compared to the control. In a farm-level investigation, cattle dung-baited pitfall trapping was undertaken on 23 beef cattle farms in SW England, which either used MLs (n = 9), SPs (n = 7) or neither chemical (n = 7). On farms that used no MLs or SPs, 24.2% of females caught were gravid. However, on farms that used MLs no gravid females were caught, and only 1% of the beetles caught on farms using SPs were gravid (p < 0.001). The association between ML and SP use and impaired reproductive output suggests that the use of such chemicals is likely to be ecologically damaging.

Keywords

Dung beetleivermectinmacrocyclic lactoneparasiticidepesticidereproductive outputsynthetic pyrethroid
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 195 - 200
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bang, HS, Lee, JH, Na, YE and Wall, R (2007) Reproduction of the dung beetle (Copris tripartitus) in the dung of cattle treated with cis-cypermethrin and chlorpyrifos. Applied Soil Ecology 35, 546–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beynon, SA, Mann, DJ, Slade, EM and Lewis, OT (2012) Species-rich dung beetle communities buffer ecosystem services in perturbed agro-ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 1365–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beynon, SA, Wainwright, WA and Christie, M (2015) The application of an ecosystem services framework to estimate the economic value of dung beetles to the UK cattle industry. Ecological Entomology 40, 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biström, O, Silfverberg, H and Rutanen, I (1991) Abundance and distribution of coprophilous Histerini (Histeridae) and Onthophagus and Aphodius (Scarabaeidae) in Finland (Coleoptera). Entomologica Fennica 2, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornemissza, GF (1970) Insectary studies on the control of dung breeding flies by the activity of the dung beetle, Onthophagus gazella F. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Austral Entomology 9, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, WC (1989) Ivermectin and Abamectin. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz Rosales, M, Martínez, M, López-Collado, J, Vargas-Mendoza, M, González-Hernández, H and Fajersson, P (2012) Effect of ivermectin on the survival and fecundity of Euoniticellus intermedius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Revista de Biologia Tropical 60, 333–345.Google Scholar
Dadour, IR, Cook, DF and Hennessy, D (2000) Reproduction and survival of the dung beetle Onthophagus binodis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) exposed to abamectin and doramectin residues in cattle dung. Environmental Entomology 29, 1116–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasen, A (2019) Available at: https://futureboy.us/fsp/dollar.fsp?quantity=367¤cy=pounds&fromYear=2015 (last accessed 26th May 2019).Google Scholar
Filgueiras, BK, Iannuzzi, L and Leal, IR (2011) Habitat fragmentation alters the structure of dung beetle communities in the Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation 144, 362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincher, GT (1981) The potential value of dung beetles in pasture ecosystems. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 16, 316–333.Google Scholar
Finnegan, PM, Flanagan, DP and Gormally, MJ (1997) Preliminary investigations of Aphodius species activity in cattle faeces treated with ivermectin. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 11, 139–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Floate, KD, Wardhaugh, KG, Boxall, AB and Sherratt, TN (2005) Fecal residues of veterinary parasiticides: non-target effects in the pasture environment. Annual Review of Entomology 50, 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittings, T and Giller, PS (1998) Resource quality and the colonisation and succession of coprophagous dung beetles. Ecography 21, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlding, B, Ridsdill-Smith, TJ and Bailey, WJ (1991) Injectable abamectin causes a delay in scarabaeine dung beetle egg-laying in cattle dung. Australian Veterinary Journal 68, 185–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutton, SA and Giller, PS (2003) The effects of the intensification of agriculture on northern temperate dung beetle communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 994–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, CT and Scholtz, CH (2015) A review on the effect of macrocyclic lactones on dung-dwelling insects: toxicity of macrocyclic lactones to dung beetles. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 82, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jessop, L (1986) Dung beetles and chafers Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea. In Barnard, PC and Askew, RR (eds). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, Vol. 5, Part 11. London, UK: Royal Entomological Society of London. pp. 26–27.Google Scholar
Knapp, M, Knappová, J and Miller, T (2013) Measurement of body condition in a common carabid beetle, Poecilus cupreus: a comparison of fresh weight, dry weight, and fat content. Journal of Insect Science 13, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, K and Scholtz, CH (1997) Lethal and sub-lethal effects of ivermectin on the dung-breeding beetles Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche) and Onitis alexis Klug (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61, 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lease, HM and Wolf, BO (2011) Lipid content of terrestrial arthropods in relation to body size, phylogeny, ontogeny and sex. Physiological Entomology 36, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobo, JM (2001) Decline of roller dung beetle (Scarabaeinae) populations in the Iberian peninsula during the 20th century. Biological Conservation 97, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losey, JE and Vaughan, M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. AIBS Bulletin 56, 311–323.Google Scholar
Mann, CM, Barnes, S, Offer, B and Wall, R (2015) Lethal and sub-lethal effects of faecal deltamethrin residues on dung-feeding insects. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 29, 189–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manning, P and Cutler, GC (2018) Ecosystem functioning is more strongly impaired by reducing dung beetle abundance than by reducing species richness. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 264, 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, P, Beynon, SA and Lewis, OT (2017) Quantifying immediate and delayed effects of anthelmintic exposure on ecosystem functioning supported by a common dung beetle species. PloS one 12, e0182730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez, I, Lumaret, JP, Zayas, RO and Kadiri, N (2017) The effects of sublethal and lethal doses of ivermectin on the reproductive physiology and larval development of the dung beetle Euoniticellus intermedius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). The Canadian Entomologist 149, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKellar, QA and Gokbulut, C (2012) Pharmacokinetic features of the antiparasitic macrocyclic lactones. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 13, 888–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, SA and Mann, DJ (2016) A review of the status of the beetles of Great Britain: The stag beetles, dor beetles, dung beetles, chafers and their allies – Lucanidae, Geotrupidae, Trogidae and Scarabaeidae. Natural England. 1–119, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5488450394914816.Google Scholar
Nichols, E, Spector, S, Louzada, J, Larsen, T, Amezquita, S, Favila, ME and Network, TR (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biological Conservation 141, 1461–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Cogollo, LC, Rodríguez-Vivas, RI, Delfín-González, H, Reyes-Novelo, E and Ojeda-Chi, MM (2015) Lethal and sublethal effects of ivermectin on Onthophagus landolti (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Environmental Entomology 44, 1634–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccini, I, Arnieri, F, Caprio, E, Nervo, B, Pelissetti, S, Palestrini, C, Roslin, T and Rolando, A (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from dung pats vary with dung beetle species and with assemblage composition. PLoS ONE 12, e0178077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickett, JA (2004) New opportunities in neuroscience, but a great danger that some may be lost. Neurotox 3, 1–10.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Ridsdill-Smith, TJ (1988) Survival and reproduction of Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae) and a scarabaeine dung beetle in dung of cattle treated with avermectin B1. Australian Journal of Entomology 27, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roslin, T, Forshage, M, Ødegaard, F, Ekblad, C and Liljeberg, G (2014). Nordens dyngbaggar (Dung Beetles of Northern Europe) Tibiale. Helsinki: Tibiale.Google Scholar
Sands, B and Wall, R (2017) Dung beetles reduce livestock gastrointestinal parasite availability on pasture. Journal of Applied Ecology 54, 1180–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, B and Wall, R (2018) Sustained parasiticide use in cattle farming affects functionally important dung beetle assemblages. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 265, 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skidmore, P (1991) Insects of the British Cow Dung Community. Monfort Bridge, UK: Field Studies Council.Google Scholar
Sommer, C, Steffansen, B, Nielsen, B, Grønvold, J, Jensen, VK, Jespersen, BJ, Springborg, J and Nansen, P (1992) Ivermectin excreted in cattle dung after subcutaneous injection or pour-on treatment: concentrations and impact on dung fauna. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, K and Coles, GC (1999) Nematode control practices and anthelmintic resistance in dairy calves in the south west of England. The Veterinary Record 144, 659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, IH and Campbell, WC (1990) Development, pharmacokinetics and mode of action of ivermectin. Acta Leidensia 59, 161–168.Google ScholarPubMed
Vale, GA, Grant, IF, Dewhurst, CF and Aigreau, D (2004) Biological and chemical assays of pyrethroids in cattle dung. Bulletin of Entomological Research 94, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vale, GA, Hargrove, JW, Chamisa, A, Grant, IF and Torr, SJ (2015) Pyrethroid treatment of cattle for tsetse control: reducing its impact on dung fauna. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 9, e0003560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venant, A, Belli, P, Borrel, S and Mallet, J (1990) Excretion of deltamethrin in lactating dairy cows. Food Additives and Contaminants 7, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verdú, JR, Cortez, V, Ortiz, AJ, González-Rodríguez, E, Martinez-Pinna, J, Lumaret, JP, Lobo, JM, Numa, C and Sánchez-Piñero, F (2015) Low doses of ivermectin cause sensory and locomotor disorders in dung beetles. Scientific Reports 5, e13912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, R and Strong, L (1987) Environmental consequences of treating cattle with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin. Nature 327, 418–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardhaugh, KG and Rodriguez-Menendez, H (1988) The effects of the antiparasitic drug, ivermectin, on the development and survival of the dung-breeding fly, Orthelia cornicina (F.) and the scarabaeine dung beetles Copris hispanus L., Bubas bubalus (Oliver) and Onitis belial F. Journal of Applied Entomology 106, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, KG, Longstaff, BC and Lacey, MJ (1998) Effects of residues of deltamethrin in cattle faeces on the development and survival of three species of dung breeding insect. Australian Veterinary Journal 76, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardhaugh, KG, Holter, P and Longstaff, B (2001) The development and survival of three species of coprophagous insect after feeding on the faeces of sheep treated with controlled-release formulations of ivermectin or albendazole. Australian Veterinary Journal 79, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamada, D, Imura, O, Shi, K and Shibuya, T (2007) Effect of tunneler dung beetles on cattle dung decomposition, soil nutrients and herbage growth. Grassland Science 53, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar