{"id":39817,"date":"2025-10-08T00:01:42","date_gmt":"2025-10-08T04:01:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=39817"},"modified":"2025-10-07T17:08:39","modified_gmt":"2025-10-07T21:08:39","slug":"report-highlights-u-s-cities-facing-pollinator-declines-due-to-multiple-pesticide-exposure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/10\/report-highlights-u-s-cities-facing-pollinator-declines-due-to-multiple-pesticide-exposure\/","title":{"rendered":"Report Highlights U.S. Cities Facing Pollinator Declines Due to Multiple Pesticide Exposure"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, October 8, 2025) A study, Pesticides detected in two urban areas have implications for local butterfly conservation<\/em><\/a>, published in partnership with researchers at Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, University of Binghamton (New York), and University of Nevada, reports widespread pesticide residues in the host plants of butterflies located in green spaces in the cities of Sacramento, California, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Just 22 of the hundreds of collected samples had no detectable residues, with all other samples containing some combination of 47 compounds of the 94 tested pesticides in the plant tissue. Of the 47 compounds, 4 are neonicotinoid insecticides linked to adverse effects for bee and pollinator populations based on previous peer-reviewed research<\/a>. The fungicide azoxystrobin and the insecticide chlorantraniliprole were detected at lethal\/sublethal concentrations, according to the report authors.<\/p>\n

\u201cResidential landscapes\u00a0have high conservation potential for\u00a0butterflies and other invertebrates,\u201d says Aaron Anderson, co-lead author of the report and pesticide program specialist at Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. He continues: \u201cBut, these findings show how pervasive pesticide contamination can be in towns and cities, and underscore that protecting wildlife in these areas includes addressing pesticides.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report\u2019s results underscore the pervasiveness of pesticide drift and dispel the myth that chemicals are only a problem in agricultural areas. Data has long shown that, while the volume of pesticide use in agricultural areas is the concentration of pesticide use per acre is higher in urban areas, \u201cHomeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre in the urban environment than farmers\u2019 usage on crops (US FWS, 2000),\u201d according to a review in Science of The Total Environment<\/em><\/a>. Toxic pesticides are employed for pest management in numerous nonagricultural public contexts, such as mosquito spraying, turf and athletic playing fields, public parks, and other common outdoor (and indoor) areas, as outlined in the scientific literature.<\/p>\n

Background and Methodology<\/h2>\n

The \u201cprimary objective [of the study] was to describe the assemblage of pesticides that are present within urban landscapes and their field-realistic concentrations,\u201d according to the authors. The researchers gathered samples from nineteen host plants in the spring of 2022 at 14 sites in California and 10 sites in New Mexico.<\/p>\n

The sites include public parks and private yards or pollinator gardens, with volunteers from Native Plant Society and Master Gardeners offering access after a survey confirmed the suitability of the area based on previous\/ongoing pesticide use.<\/p>\n

At each site, leaf tissue was collected from between six to ten plants per species and stored at the Cornell Chemical Ecology Core Facility for safekeeping. A standardized pesticide extraction method (modified EN 15662 QuEChERS) screened for 94 pesticides (including metabolites or breakdown products) based on three criteria: extensive agricultural or residential use in the U.S., relevance to insects based on toxicity, and quantifiability via the selected methodology of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS\/MS).<\/p>\n

Data for county pesticide application reports were provided by Sacramento and Yolo counties, with county-specific data for Albuquerque not included due to a lack of availability at the date of the survey. Application data for California included \u201call pesticide applications made to support agricultural production except for seed treatments.\u201d The authors continue: \u201cThey also include non-agricultural pesticide applications made to maintain roadside and railroad rights-of-way, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and any application of a restricted material and\/or made by a licensed pest control operator (e.g., landscaping or pest management professional). Consumer home-and-garden uses are not included.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report was published on August 22, 2025, in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry<\/em>, a journal of Oxford University Press. Funding for this report included grants from the National Science Foundation and Carroll Petrie Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest in writing this study.<\/p>\n

Findings<\/h2>\n

As mentioned, the researchers found widespread contamination of host plants (314 out of 336) for butterfly populations and likely other beneficial insects and pollinators, with a mixture of detections reported on most plant samples spanning insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, one antibiotic, one degradate (breakdown product; think microplastic to plastic), and one adjuvant.<\/p>\n

The following compounds (and their \u201cfamilies\u201d) were screened and detected at least once across the samples:<\/p>\n