Despite the ubiquitous and persistent presence of microplastic (MP) in marine ecosystems, knowledge of its potential harmful ecological effects is low. In this work, we assessed the risk of floating MP (1 μm – 5 mm) to marine ecosystems by comparing ambient concentrations in the global ocean with available ecotoxicity data. The integration of twenty-three species-specific effect threshold concentration data in a species sensitivity distribution yielded a median unacceptable level of 1.21 * 105 MP m-³ (95% CI: 7.99 * 103 – 1.49 * 106 MP m-³). We found that in 2010 for 0.17% of the surface layer (0 – 5 m) of the global ocean a threatening risk would occur. By 2050 and 2100, this fraction increases to 0.52% and 1.62%, respectively, according to the worst-case predicted future plastic discharge into the ocean. Our results reveal a spatial and multidecadal variability of MP-related risk at the global ocean surface. For example, we have identified the Mediterranean Sea and the Yellow Sea as hotspots of marine microplastic risks already now and even more pronounced in future decades.

Despite the ubiquitous and persistent presence of microplastic (MP) in marine ecosystems, knowledge of its potential harmful ecological effects is low. In this work, we assessed the risk of floating MP (1 μm–5 mm) to marine ecosystems by comparing ambient concentrations in the global ocean with available ecotoxicity data. The integration of twenty-three species-specific effect threshold concentration data in a species sensitivity distribution yielded a median unacceptable level of 1.21 ∗ 10⁵ MP m⁻³ (95% CI: 7.99 ∗ 10³–1.49 ∗ 10⁶ MP m⁻³). We found that in 2010 for 0.17% of the surface layer (0–5 m) of the global ocean a threatening risk would occur. By 2050 and 2100, this fraction increases to 0.52% and 1.62%, respectively, according to the worst-case predicted future plastic discharge into the ocean. Our results reveal a spatial and multidecadal variability of MP-related risk at the global ocean surface. For example, we have identified the Mediterranean Sea and the Yellow Sea as hotspots of marine microplastic risks already now and even more pronounced in future decades.

The use of some systemic insecticides has been banned in Europe because they are toxic to beneficial insects when these feed on nectar. A recent study shows that systemic insecticides can also kill beneficial insects when they feed on honeydew. Honeydew is the sugar-rich excretion of hemipterans and is the most abundant carbohydrate source for beneficial insects such as pollinators and biological control agents in agroecosystems. Here, we investigated whether the toxicity of contaminated honeydew depends on i) the hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew; ii) the active ingredient, and iii) the beneficial insect that feeds on it. HPLC-MS/MS analyses demonstrated that the systemic insecticides pymetrozine and flonicamid, which are commonly used in Integrated Pest Management programs, were present in honeydew excreted by the mealybug Planococcus citri. However, only pymetrozine was detected in honeydew excreted by the whitefly Aleurothixus floccosus. Toxicological studies demonstrated that honeydew excreted by mealybugs feeding on trees treated either with flonicamid or pymetrozine increased the mortality of the hoverfly Sphaerophoria rueppellii, but did not affect the parasitic wasp Anagyrus vladimiri. Honeydew contaminated with flonicamid was more toxic for the hoverfly than that contaminated with pymetrozine. Collectively, our data demonstrate that systemic insecticides commonly used in IPM programs can contaminate honeydew and kill beneficial insects that feed on it, with their toxicity being dependent on the active ingredient and hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew. Insecticides recommended in Integrated Pest Management programs reach honeydew and kill beneficial insects that feed on it.

The use of some systemic insecticides has been banned in Europe because they are toxic to beneficial insects when these feed on nectar. A recent study shows that systemic insecticides can also kill beneficial insects when they feed on honeydew. Honeydew is the sugar-rich excretion of hemipterans and is the most abundant carbohydrate source for beneficial insects such as pollinators and biological control agents in agroecosystems. Here, we investigated whether the toxicity of contaminated honeydew depends on i) the hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew; ii) the active ingredient, and iii) the beneficial insect that feeds on it. HPLC-MS/MS analyses demonstrated that the systemic insecticides pymetrozine and flonicamid, which are commonly used in Integrated Pest Management programs, were present in honeydew excreted by the mealybug Planococcus citri. However, only pymetrozine was detected in honeydew excreted by the whitefly Aleurothixus floccosus. Toxicological studies demonstrated that honeydew excreted by mealybugs feeding on trees treated either with flonicamid or pymetrozine increased the mortality of the hoverfly Sphaerophoria rueppellii, but did not affect the parasitic wasp Anagyrus vladimiri. Honeydew contaminated with flonicamid was more toxic for the hoverfly than that contaminated with pymetrozine. Collectively, our data demonstrate that systemic insecticides commonly used in IPM programs can contaminate honeydew and kill beneficial insects that feed on it, with their toxicity being dependent on the active ingredient and hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew. Insecticides recommended in Integrated Pest Management programs reach honeydew and kill beneficial insects that feed on it.

The use of some systemic insecticides has been banned in Europe because they are toxic to beneficial insects when these feed on nectar. A recent study shows that systemic insecticides can also kill beneficial insects when they feed on honeydew. Honeydew is the sugar-rich excretion of hemipterans and is the most abundant carbohydrate source for beneficial insects such as pollinators and biological control agents in agroecosystems. Here, we investigated whether the toxicity of contaminated honeydew depends on i) the hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew; ii) the active ingredient, and iii) the beneficial insect that feeds on it. HPLC-MS/MS analyses demonstrated that the systemic insecticides pymetrozine and flonicamid, which are commonly used in Integrated Pest Management programs, were present in honeydew excreted by the mealybug Planococcus citri. However, only pymetrozine was detected in honeydew excreted by the whitefly Aleurothixus floccosus. Toxicological studies demonstrated that honeydew excreted by mealybugs feeding on trees treated either with flonicamid or pymetrozine increased the mortality of the hoverfly Sphaerophoria rueppellii, but did not affect the parasitic wasp Anagyrusvladimiri. Honeydew contaminated with flonicamid was more toxic for the hoverfly than that contaminated with pymetrozine. Collectively, our data demonstrate that systemic insecticides commonly used in IPM programs can contaminate honeydew and kill beneficial insects that feed on it, with their toxicity being dependent on the active ingredient and hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew.

The use of some systemic insecticides has been banned in Europe because they are toxic to beneficial insects when these feed on nectar. A recent study shows that systemic insecticides can also kill beneficial insects when they feed on honeydew. Honeydew is the sugar-rich excretion of hemipterans and is the most abundant carbohydrate source for beneficial insects such as pollinators and biological control agents in agroecosystems. Here, we investigated whether the toxicity of contaminated honeydew depends on i) the hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew; ii) the active ingredient, and iii) the beneficial insect that feeds on it. HPLC-MS/MS analyses demonstrated that the systemic insecticides pymetrozine and flonicamid, which are commonly used in Integrated Pest Management programs, were present in honeydew excreted by the mealybug Planococcus citri. However, only pymetrozine was detected in honeydew excreted by the whitefly Aleurothixus floccosus. Toxicological studies demonstrated that honeydew excreted by mealybugs feeding on trees treated either with flonicamid or pymetrozine increased the mortality of the hoverfly Sphaerophoria rueppellii, but did not affect the parasitic wasp Anagyrus vladimiri. Honeydew contaminated with flonicamid was more toxic for the hoverfly than that contaminated with pymetrozine. Collectively, our data demonstrate that systemic insecticides commonly used in IPM programs can contaminate honeydew and kill beneficial insects that feed on it, with their toxicity being dependent on the active ingredient and hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew.

The use of some systemic insecticides has been banned in Europe because they are toxic to beneficial insects when these feed on nectar. A recent study shows that systemic insecticides can also kill beneficial insects when they feed on honeydew. Honeydew is the sugar-rich excretion of hemipterans and is the most abundant carbohydrate source for beneficial insects such as pollinators and biological control agents in agroecosystems. Here, we investigated whether the toxicity of contaminated honeydew depends on i) the hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew; ii) the active ingredient, and iii) the beneficial insect that feeds on it. HPLC-MS/MS analyses demonstrated that the systemic insecticides pymetrozine and flonicamid, which are commonly used in Integrated Pest Management programs, were present in honeydew excreted by the mealybug Planococcus citri. However, only pymetrozine was detected in honeydew excreted by the whitefly Aleurothixus floccosus. Toxicological studies demonstrated that honeydew excreted by mealybugs feeding on trees treated either with flonicamid or pymetrozine increased the mortality of the hoverfly Sphaerophoria rueppellii, but did not affect the parasitic wasp Anagyrus vladimiri. Honeydew contaminated with flonicamid was more toxic for the hoverfly than that contaminated with pymetrozine. Collectively, our data demonstrate that systemic insecticides commonly used in IPM programs can contaminate honeydew and kill beneficial insects that feed on it, with their toxicity being dependent on the active ingredient and hemipteran species that excretes the honeydew. | This research was partially funded by an Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias (INIA) (Project RTA2017-00095) and the Conselleria d’Agricultura, Pesca i Alimentació de la Generalitat Valenciana. J.G.C was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Ramón y Cajal Program (RYC-2013-13834) and M.C.A was recipient of grant from INIA (CPD2016-0085).

Microplastic pollution is becoming a major challenge with the growing use of plastic. In recent years, research about microplastic pollution in the environment has become a field of study with increased interest, with ever expanding findings on sources, sinks and pathways of microplastics. Wastewater treatment plants effectively remove microplastics from wastewater and concentrate them in sewage sludge which is often used to fertilise agricultural fields. Despite this, quantification of microplastic pollution in agricultural fields through the application of sewage sludge is largely unknown. In light of this issue, four wastewater treatment plants and 16 agricultural fields (0–8 sewage sludge applications of 20–22 tons ha−1 per application), located in the east of Spain, were sampled. Microplastics were extracted using a floatation and filtration method, making a distinction between light density microplastics (ρ < 1 g cm−3) and heavy density microplastics (ρ > 1 g cm−3). Sewage sludge, on average, had a light density plastic load of 18,000 ± 15,940 microplastics kg−1 and a heavy density plastic load of 32,070 ± 19,080 microplastics kg−1. Soils without addition of sewage sludge had an average light density plastic load of 930 ± 740 microplastics kg−1 and a heavy density plastic load of 1100 ± 570 microplastics kg−1. Soils with addition of sewage sludge had an average light density plastic load of 2130 ± 950 microplastics kg−1 and a heavy density plastic load of 3060 ± 1680 microplastics kg−1. On average, soils’ plastic loads increased by 280 light density microplastics kg−1 and 430 heavy density microplastics kg−1 with each successive application of sewage sludge, indicating that sewage sludge application results in accumulation of microplastics in agricultural soils. Microplastics concentrations in soils are highly proportional to the number of sludge applications.

Microplastic pollution is becoming a major challenge with the growing use of plastic. In recent years, research about microplastic pollution in the environment has become a field of study with increased interest, with ever expanding findings on sources, sinks and pathways of microplastics. Wastewater treatment plants effectively remove microplastics from wastewater and concentrate them in sewage sludge which is often used to fertilise agricultural fields. Despite this, quantification of microplastic pollution in agricultural fields through the application of sewage sludge is largely unknown. In light of this issue, four wastewater treatment plants and 16 agricultural fields (0–8 sewage sludge applications of 20–22 tons ha⁻¹ per application), located in the east of Spain, were sampled. Microplastics were extracted using a floatation and filtration method, making a distinction between light density microplastics (ρ < 1 g cm⁻³) and heavy density microplastics (ρ > 1 g cm⁻³). Sewage sludge, on average, had a light density plastic load of 18,000 ± 15,940 microplastics kg⁻¹ and a heavy density plastic load of 32,070 ± 19,080 microplastics kg⁻¹. Soils without addition of sewage sludge had an average light density plastic load of 930 ± 740 microplastics kg⁻¹ and a heavy density plastic load of 1100 ± 570 microplastics kg⁻¹. Soils with addition of sewage sludge had an average light density plastic load of 2130 ± 950 microplastics kg⁻¹ and a heavy density plastic load of 3060 ± 1680 microplastics kg⁻¹. On average, soils’ plastic loads increased by 280 light density microplastics kg⁻¹ and 430 heavy density microplastics kg⁻¹ with each successive application of sewage sludge, indicating that sewage sludge application results in accumulation of microplastics in agricultural soils.