Short communication
Crop losses and the economic impact of insect pests on Brazilian
agriculture
C.M. Oliveira
a,*, A.M. Auad
b, S.M. Mendes
c, M.R. Frizzas
d aEmbrapa Cerrados, Rod. BR 020, Km 18, Caixa Postal 08223, Planaltina/DF 73 310-970, BrazilbEmbrapa Gado de Leite, Rua Eugênio do Nascimento, 610, Dom Bosco, Juiz de Fora/MG 36 038-330, Brazil cEmbrapa Milho e Sorgo, Rod. MG 424, Km 45, C. P. 285, Sete Lagoas/MG 35 701-970, Brazil
dUniversidade de Brasília (UnB), Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Zoologia, C. P. 04661, Brasília/DF 70 910-900, Brazil
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 12 July 2013 Received in revised form 25 October 2013 Accepted 25 October 2013
Keywords: Insecta
Social and environmental cost Brazilian agribusiness Estimated losses Damages Brazil
a b s t r a c t
Among the various sectors of the Brazilian economy, agriculture plays a prominent role, generating jobs and income for the country. However, the agricultural sector faces systematic annual losses due to pests and diseases. The damage caused by insect pests is one of the primary factors leading to the reduced production of major crops. The study presented here estimates the production losses of major crops caused by insects and the economic impact related to the direct damage caused by insects, to the pur-chase of insecticides, and to medical treatment for humans poisoned by insecticides. The results indicate that insect pests cause an average annual loss of 7.7% in production in Brazil, which is a reduction of approximately 25 million tons of food, fiber, and biofuels. The total annual economic losses reach approximately US$ 17.7 billion. These results are important for government policies in the agricultural sector, as well as indicate the need for updated data regarding the losses caused by insects in Brazil and the need for systematic monitoring of these losses.
Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Brazilian agriculture is a primary sector that generates income for the country (Baer, 2002; Barros et al., 2009; Morán, 1993); agriculture accounted for 4.45% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and reached US$ 100.1 billion in 2012 (IBGE, 2013a). Agri-cultural commodities have been the main focus of Brazilian pro-duction and exports. Globally, Brazil is currently one of the leading manufacturers and exporters of food,fibers, meat and energy, and it is one of the largest producers of coffee, corn, soybeans, sugar-cane (sugar and ethanol), oil plants, oranges (fresh fruit and juice), grapes, and bovine, swine, and poultry meat (USDA, 2013).
Insect pests are the major competitors with humans for re-sources generated by agriculture, and are favored by monocultures in extensive areas and the intensive use of fertilizers (Oerke and Dehne, 2004). The damage caused by these organisms is one of the most important factors in the reduced productivity of any crop plant species (Cramer, 1967; Metcalf, 1996; Pimentel, 1976). Losses
can occur in thefield (pre-harvest) and during storage (post-har-vest) (Oerke, 2006).
Accurate estimates of agricultural losses caused by insects are difficult to obtain because the damage caused by these organisms depends on a number of factors related to environmental condi-tions, the plant species being cultivated, the socioeconomic con-ditions of farmers, and the level of technology used. By contrast, few governments have solid programs to monitor and systemati-cally evaluate the losses in agricultural activities that are caused by pests, including insect pests (Yudelman et al., 1998). In Brazil, data on agricultural losses caused by insects are extremely scarce and scattered in the scientific literature.
In addition to the economic losses caused by the direct action of insect pests that damage crops, the measures taken to control these organisms can also cause indirect economic losses related to the purchase and application of insecticides, to expenses related to medical treatment for people poisoned by insecticides, and to damage caused by environmental contamination.
The objective of this study was to estimate the production losses and economic losses caused by insect pests affecting major crops grown in Brazil, including losses related to direct damage caused by pests, to the purchase of insecticides, and to medical expenses for *Corresponding author. Tel.:þ55 61 3388 9861.
E-mail address:charles.oliveira@embrapa.br(C.M. Oliveira).
Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Crop Protection
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c r o p r o
0261-2194/$esee front matterÓ2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
humans poisoned by the insecticides used to control these organisms.
2. Material and methods
The estimated economic losses in the production of plants cultivated in Brazil were based on the percentage of damage caused by insects (pre-harvest losses) proposed byGoellner (1993) and Bento (1999), which is based on normal crop conditions; therefore, this measure is related to crop losses caused by insects even after control measures have been adopted (sensu Oerke et al., 1994). Economic losses (Table 1) were estimated for each crop by
multiplying the estimated loss in production (sensuWalker, 1983) caused by insect pests and the mean price paid to the producer per kilogram or liter of each product. Economic losses per unit area (US$/ha) (Table 1) were estimated by dividing the economic losses caused by insect pests obtained for each crop by planted area. The mean percentage of losses in production for all crops was obtained by multiplying the total loss in production by 100 divided by the total yield of crops. The data regarding the production of each crop were obtained from the National Supply Company (CONAB) and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) (CONAB, 2012, 2013a, 2013b; IBGE, 2013b, 2013c), and average prices for each product were obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
Table 1
Quantification of the crop losses and economic impact of insect pests on agricultural crops grown in Brazil and consumption and sale value of insecticides by crop.
Lossesa Production (1000 t)b
Economic loss (million US$)c
Economic loss (US$/ha)
Production loss (1000 t)
Insecticides (1000 t)d
Insecticides sales (1000 US$)d
Crops
Sugarcane (sugar) 10 37664.2 2528.33 541 4184.9 4758i 262,167i
Sugarcane (ethanol)e 10 23624.1 2081.42 2624.9
Corn 7 76068.2 1945.75 126 5725.6 11,386 242,699
Soybeans 5 82063.5 1518.63 55 4319.1 83,667 1,322,191
Tobacco 31 851.9 1112.79 2730 382.7 148 10,228
Arabica coffee 12 2300.6 1018.76 441 313.7 8180j 130,113j
Beans 7 3283.8 581.75 182 247.2 1556 39,612
Rice 10 12050.1 543.31 225 1338.9 1557 32,873
Cotton 10 1399.8 409.14 592 155.5 32,760k 589,947k
Robusta coffee 12 748.9 271.87 682 102.1
Cotton seed 10 2249.1 163.56 249.9
Peanut 43 320.8 161.44 1680 242.0 233 7933
Cassava 2 24455.7 116.21 66 499.1 * *
Wheat 5 4300.4 106.83 56 226.3 1162)l 41,072l
Sorghum 5 2246.6 23.81 30 118.2 * *
Barley 7 260.8 7.17 71 19.6
Fruits
Oranges 10 18408.6 520.55 642 2045.4 9198 81,497
Bananas 10 7304.0 383.05 768 811.6 202 1260
Apples 6 1375.5 164.66 4281 87.8 1870 6506
Coconutsf 12 1932.5 162.53 628 263.5 * *
Grapes 4 1483.0 80.49 1004 61.8 155 3796
Cacao 10 243.8 67.00 99 27.1 * *
Cashew nuts 15 276.4 47.27 64 48.8 * *
Passion fruit 2 920.2 35.45 573 18.8 * *
Tangerines 6 1122.7 34.73 652 71.7 * *
Pineapplesf 3 1580.8 30.77 506 48.9 * *
Papayas 4 1871.3 29.44 820 78.0 * *
Limes 6 1020.3 26.23 552 65.1 * *
Mangoes 3 1188.9 18.28 239 36.8 * *
Melons 2 478.4 9.09 461 9.8 67 2983
Guavas 5 316.4 6.50 407 16.7 * *
Peaches 5 220.7 5.48 272 11.6 * *
Dendê palm nuts 2 1292.7 4.73 43 26.4 * *
Vegetables
Tomatoes 7 3862.9 243.37 3807 290.8 1675 49,653
Onions 5 1314.7 47.90 835 69.2 108 2132
Garlic 5 101.0 26.76 2655 5.3 20 387
Potatoes 3 3615.9 26.74 204 111.8 2168 37,903
Other crops
Rubberg 30 221.8 168.72 1242 95.1 * *
Miscellaneoush 3204 59,385
Total 14730.54 164,074 2,924,337
*Data not available.
aPercentage of losses caused by insects based onGoellner (1993)andBento (1999). bSource:CONAB (2012); CONAB (2013a, 2013b)andIBGE (2013b, 2013c).
c Based on the average price paid to the farmer per kilogram or liter, source:Anonymous (2012), CEPEA (2013)andIEA (2013). d Source:SINDAG (2013).
eThousand liters. f Million fruits. gKg of natural rubber.
hTotal refers to cultivation offlowers; fruit (not present inTable 1), vegetables (not present inTable 1); pasture; species used for reforestation and stored grain. iTotal refers to cultivation of sugarcane for production of sugar and alcohol.
jTotal refers to cultivation of coffee arabica and conilon. kTotal refers to cultivation of cotton for lint and seed production.
and Supply (Anonymous, 2012), the Center for Advanced Studies in Applied Economics (CEPEA, 2013) and the Institute of Agricultural Economics (IEA, 2013) (Table 1). Data regarding insecticide ex-penses in Brazil were obtained from the National Union of the In-dustry of Agricultural Defense Products (SINDAG, 2013). The treatment costs for people poisoned by insecticides were estimated by multiplying the number of patients hospitalized with insecticide poisoning by the average value spent by the Ministry of Health in the public health system for the treatment of such poisoning (SIGTAP, 2013; SINITOX, 2013).
3. Results and discussion
Data on agricultural losses are essential for the management of pest species and for evaluating the effectiveness of current plant protection practices (Oerke and Dehne, 2004). They are also necessary for planning food policy and for economic reasons, because such losses can influence the international price of agri-cultural products based on the laws of supply and demand. These data provide resource allocation information for studies on pests and diseases and provide also a basis for making decisions on the relative importance of these organisms with respect to agriculture and the environment (Walker, 1983).
Several estimates of worldwide losses caused by insects have been calculated since the middle of the 20th century. In 1967, Cramer (1967) estimated that worldwide losses were approxi-mately 13.8%, andPimentel (1986)estimated a 13.0% loss caused by insects in 1985.Oerke and Dehne (2004)reported approximately a 10.1% loss for eight major crops - rice, wheat, maize, barley, po-tatoes, soybeans, cotton and sugar beet - due to pests, and more recently,Oerke (2006)estimated worldwide losses between 7.9% and 15.1% for wheat, rice, maize, potato, soybean, and cotton, even with effective control measures.
In Brazil, estimates of the losses caused by insect attacks on the 35 major crops vary between 2 and 43% (Bento, 1999; Goellner, 1993) (Table 1). We estimated that, on average, insects cause los-ses of 7.7% in these major crops, generating an annual loss of approximately US$ 14.7 billion to the Brazilian economy (Table 1), despite the adoption of control measures.
Therefore, in terms of volume, Brazil suffers a reduction of approximately 25.0 million tons of food,fiber and biofuels. Of this, approximately 12.5 million tons of grain, 0.4 million tons of coffee, 4.2 million tons of sugar, 2.6 million liters of ethanol, and 0.5 million tons of cassava are lost annually, with an approximate loss of US$ 12.6 billion. Approximately 3.7 million tons of fruit are lost; together with 0.5 million tons of vegetables and 95,000 tons of natural rubber, these losses approach US$ 2.1 billion (Table 1). In relative terms, the greatest losses per area are observed for apples (US$ 4281/ha), tomatoes (US$ 3806/ha), tobacco (US$ 2729/ha), garlic (US$ 2655/ha), peanut (US$ 1679/ha), rubber (US$ 1242/ha) and grapes (US$ 1004/ha) (Table 1).
In addition to the economic losses related to reduced produc-tion, pest control requires measures that contribute to increased spending, which increases the damage that these organisms cause to the economy, to the environment, and to human and animal health. Brazil is one of the largest consumers of pesticides, including insecticides, miticides, fungicides, and herbicides, and the sales of these products reached US$ 8.5 billion in 2011 (SINDAG, 2013). Although successful control strategies of pests are used in Brazil that enables the control of key pests with reduced environ-mental impacts, based, for example, on biological control agents, such as in sugarcane for stem borers (Botelho, 1992), and the use of genetically modified plants in crops like soybean, corn and cotton (Sousa Ramalho et al., 2011; Bernardi et al., 2013; Okumura et al., 2013), the application of synthetic insecticides has been the main
measure used to control insect pests. Brazil consumed 164,074 tons of synthetic insecticide in 2011, reaching an annual expenditure of US$ 2.9 billion (Table 1) (SINDAG, 2013). Currently, there are 102 active ingredients (insecticides) used in Brazil and 423 commercial products with insecticidal action that are registered at the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA); 51.6% of these in-secticides belong to toxicological class I (extremely toxic) or II (highly toxic) (Anonymous, 2013).
Although in modern agriculture, pesticides, including in-secticides, have been important tools for producing food with the quality and quantity needed for the growing world population, their use may generate environmental costs and costs related to acute and chronic hazards to human health (Pimentel, 2009; Costa et al., 2007; Dasgupta et al., 2001; Pimentel et al., 1992).
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), for each reported case of pesticide poisoning, there are at least another 50 unreported cases (Dasgupta et al., 2001). Therefore, an estimated 338,150 (6763 cases50) cases of pesticide poisoning occurred in
Brazil in 2009 (SINITOX, 2013), with annual treatment-related ex-penses amounting to approximately US$ 29 million. In addition to the cases of acute poisoning that occur in Brazil, a study conducted in 11 states showed that the use of pesticides, including in-secticides, may be related to mortality caused by chronic diseases such as various types of cancer (Chrisman et al., 2009). Food contamination by residual insecticides is another social cost, and studies conducted in more than 13,000 food samples in Brazil be-tween 2001 and 2010 showed that approximately 48.3% of the samples had residues of at least one insecticide and that approxi-mately 2.7% of the samples had substances concentrations above the levels allowed by the National Agency for Sanitary Surveillance (Jardim and Caldas, 2012). However, there are no data available in Brazil that estimate the economic losses due to chronic diseases caused by the use of, exposure to or consumption of foods with insecticide residues. In addition to the acute and chronic effects of insecticides, other costs are generated by the absence or loss of employment of poisoned individuals. In the U.S., the annual social cost of agricultural pesticide use, including costs related to the treatment of acute and chronic poisoning, the loss of employment, and death, has been estimated at US$ 1.2 billion (Pimentel, 2005).
comprehensive economic analysis. In Brazil, only two studies have estimated the agricultural economic losses caused by insects. During the late 1990s,Bento (1999)estimated that direct damage by insects to 33 major crops caused annual agricultural losses of approximately US$ 2.3 billion. More recently,Oliveira et al. (2013) updated thisfigure to approximately US$ 12 billion.
The estimates presented in this study are based on the per-centages of losses caused by insect pests estimated in the 1990s (Goellner, 1993; Bento, 1999). However, the framework of Brazilian agriculture has changed significantly. In the primary agricultural regions of the country, particularly those with large growing areas, farmers have adopted an intensive system of production with a summer crop, a second season or“off season”, and irrigation during the winter. This scenario is known as“green bridge”, whereby crop overlapping makes food resources available for herbivores, partic-ularly polyphagous insects, throughout the year. In addition, several changes in cultural practices have been implemented in Brazilian agriculture, such as increased adoption of the no-tillage system; a reduction in the spacing of several crops such as corn and soybeans; changes in plant architecture; variations in the crop cycle; and a large expansion of transgenic crops. Furthermore, in-tegrated pest management (IPM), which was adopted in Brazil in the 1970s and became widespread across various crops in the following decades (1980s and 1990s), such as soybean (Panizzi, 2013), has fallen into disuse in Brazil.
We hypothesize that this entire set of factors has led to a sig-nificant change in the importance of different insect pests for every crop; some key pests have lost relative importance, and others that were previously considered secondary now represent major chal-lenges to pest control. For example, the implementation of mecha-nized harvesting of sugarcane in recent years has favored the increased populations of leafhoppers of the genus Mahanarva Distant (Dinardo-Miranda et al., 2002). In some regions of Brazil, populations ofDiatraeaflavipennella(Box) have been higher than those ofDiatraea saccharalisF., which is the main pest of sugarcane in Brazil, due to the use of resistant varieties and the parasitoid Cotesiaflavipes(Cameron), which controlsD. saccharalisbut are less effective in controllingD.flavipennella(Freitas et al., 2006). In corn, second-season crops and irrigation have increased the intensity of use of insecticides to control the main crop pest,Spodoptera frugi-perda(JE Smith), and favored the development of pest populations resistant to insecticides (Diez-Rodrigues and Omoto, 2001; Carvalho et al., 2013). In soybean, caterpillars of the generaSpodoptera Gue-née andChrysodeixisHubner have increased in importance as de-foliators due to the excessive use of pesticides and the decline in the use of integrated pest management (Moscardi et al., 2012; Bueno et al., 2013). In recent years, soil pests (Coleoptera: Melolonthidae) have increased in importance in grain crops in center-south regions of Brazil (Oliveira et al., 2007; Oliveira and Frizzas, 2013). The introduction of exotic species of insect pests can also greatly infl u-ence crop losses. A good example is the recent outbreak of cater-pillars of theHelicoverpa armigera(Hübner) in soybean and cotton crops in Bahia, Goiás and Mato Grosso states (Czepak et al., 2013), which was estimated to have caused losses of approximately US$ 500 million for the 2012/2013 crop (SEAGRI, 2013).
In this context, the changes in Brazilian agriculture in recent decades, reflecting changes on the relative importance of different groups of insect pests in several crops, reinforce the imperative need of implementing systematic programs for updating, moni-toring and evaluation of losses caused by insect pests.
4. Conclusions
Crop loss estimates due to insect damage are an important tool in integrated pest management (IPM). These estimates are also
used by government agencies to better decide where to allocate research funding, and to determine the relative importance of these organisms in relation to agriculture and the environment. Although agriculture is one of the mainstays of Brazilian economy, this study represents one of the most unique and comprehensive analysis undertaken in the country to evaluate the damage caused by pest insects in major crops. Because of the lack of information in Brazil, the data presented in this study do not accurately represent the losses caused by insects in Brazilian agriculture. However, our es-timates demonstrate the importance of insect pests to Brazilian agriculture and indicate the need for updated data regarding agricultural losses caused by insects as well as the need for sys-tematic monitoring of these losses by both government agencies and public and private research institutions. Such monitoring could function as an instrument for the creation of public policies regarding the allocation of resources for research and pest man-agement in Brazil, which will ultimately increase the country’s competitiveness in the international market.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the National Union of the Industry of Agri-cultural Defense Products (SINDAG) in the person of Juliana Ramiro Juliani Cruz for the data on the consumption and sale value of in-secticides in Brazil. We thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvol-vimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil).
References
Anonymous, 2012. Plano agrícola e pecuário 2012-2013. Mapa/SPA. Brasília, Brazil. Anonymous, 2013. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Coor-denação-Geral de Agrotóxicos e Afins/DFIA/SDA. Sistemas de Agrotóxicos FitossanitárioseAGROFIT. Available:http://extranet.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_
cons/principal_agrofit_cons(last access: March 2013).
Baer, W.A., 2002. Economia Brasileira. Nobel, São Paulo, Brazil.
Barros, G.S.C., Spolador, H.F.S., Bacchi, M.R.P., 2009. Supply and demand shocks and the growth of the Brazilian agriculture. Rev. Bras. Econ. 63, 35e50.
Bento, J.M.S., 1999. Perdas por insetos na agricultura. Ação Ambient. 4, 19e21. Bernardi, O., Dourado, P.M., Carvalho, R.A., Martinelli, S., Berger, G.U., Head, G.P.,
Omoto, C., 2013. High levels of biological activity of Cry1Ac protein expressed on MON 87701MON 89788 soybean againstHeliothis virescens(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Manag. Sci..http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.3581.
Botelho, P.S.M., 1992. Quinze anos de controle biológico deDiatraea saccharalis
utilizando parasitóides. Pesqu. Agropec. Bras. 27, 255e262.
Bueno, A.F., Paula-Moraes, S.V., Gazzoni, D.L., Pomari, A.F., 2013. Economic thresh-olds in soybean-integrated pest management: old concepts, current adoption, and adequacy. Neotrop. Entomol. 42, 439e447.
Carvalho, R.A., Omoto, C., Field, L.M., Williamson, M.S., Bass, C., 2013. Investigating the molecular mechanisms of organophosphate and pyrethroid resistance in the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. PLoS ONE 8 (4), e62268.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062268.
CEPEA, 2013. Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada. Indicadores de preços. Available: http://cepea.esalq.usp.br/indicador/ (last access: March 2013).
Chrisman, J.R., Koifman, S., Sarcinelli, P.N., Moreira, J.C., Koifman, R.J., Meyer, A., 2009. Pesticide sales and adult male cancer mortality in Brazil. Int. J. Hyg. En-viron. Health 212, 310e321.
CONAB, 2012. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira: cana-de-açúcar - terceiro levantamento e dezembro/2012. Safra 2012/2013. Available: http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/ 12_12_12_10_34_43_boletim_cana_portugues_12_2012.pdf(last access: March 2013).
CONAB, 2013a. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira: café eprimeira estimativaejaneiro/2013. Safra 2013. Available:
http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/13_01_09_17_43_49_ boletim_cafe_janeiro_2013.pdf(last access: March 2013).
CONAB, 2013b. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira: grãoseSexto levantamentoemarço/2013. Safra 2012/2013. Avail-able: http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/13_03_07_10_39_ 19_levantamento_safras_graos_6.pdf(last access: March 2013).
Costa, C., Silva, S., Coelho, P., Roma-Torres, J., Teixeira, J.P., Mayan, O., 2007. Micro-nucleus analysis in a Portuguese population exposed to pesticides: preliminary survey. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 210, 415e418.
Czepak, C., Albernaz, K.C., Vivan, L.M., Guimarães, H.O., Carvalhais, T., 2013. Primeiro registro de ocorrência deHelicoverpa armigera(Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctui-dae) no Brasil. Pesqu. Agropec. Trop. 43, 110e113.
Dams, R.I., 2006. Pesticidas: usos e perigos à saúde e ao meio ambiente. Rev. Saúde Ambient. 7, 37e44.
Dasgupta, S., Mamingi, N., Meisner, C., 2001. Pesticide use in Brazil in the era of agroindustrialization and globalization. Environ. Dev. Econ. 6, 459e482.
Diez-Rodrigues, G.I., Omoto, C., 2001. Herança da resistência deSpodoptera frugi-perda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) a Lambda-Cialotrina. Neotrop. Entomol. 30, 311e316.
Dinardo-Miranda, L.L., Garcia, V., Parazzi, V.J., 2002. Efeito de inseticidas no controle de Mahanarva fimbriolata(Stål) (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) e de nematóides
fitoparasitos na qualidade tecnológica e na produtividade da cana-de-açúcar. Neotrop. Entomol. 31, 609e614.
Fernandes Neto, M.L., Sarcinelli, P.N., 2009. Agrotóxicos em água para consumo humano: uma abordagem de avaliação de risco e contribuição ao processo de atualização da legislação brasileira. Eng. Sanit. Ambient. 41, 69e78.
Freitas, M.R., Fonseca, A.P., Silva, E.L., Mendonça, A.L., Silva, C.E., Mendonça, A.L., Nascimento, R., Santana, A.E., 2006. The predominance ofDiatraeaflavipennella
(Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in sugar canefields in the states of Alagoas, Brazil. Fla. Entomol. 89, 539e540.
Goellner, C.I., 1993. Utilização dos defensivos agrícolas no Brasil: análise do seu impacto sobre o ambiente e a saúde humana. Artgraph, São Paulo, Brazil. IBGE, 2013a. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Indicadores IBGE - Contas
nacionais trimestrais- Indicadores de volume e valores correntes. Available:
ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Contas_Nacionais/Contas_Nacionais_Trimestrais/Fasciculo_ Indicadores_IBGE/pib-vol-val_201204caderno.pdf(last access: April 2013). IBGE, 2013b. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Levantamento
Sistemá-tico da Produção Agrícola. Available:http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/ indicadores/agropecuaria/lspa/lspa_201301.pdf(last access: April 2013). IBGE, 2013c. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. In: Produção Agrícola
Municipal. Culturas temporárias e permanentes. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 38, pp. 1e 97, 2011. Disponível em ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Producao_Agricola/Producao_ Agricola_Municipal_%5Banual%5D/2011/pam2011.pdf(last access: May 2013). IEA, 2013. Instituto de Economia Agrícola. Banco de dados. Available:http://www.
iea.sp.gov.br/out/bancodedados.html(last access: March 2013).
Jardim, A.N.O., Caldas, E.D., 2012. Brazilian monitoring programs for pesticide res-idues in food - results from 2001 to 2010. Food Control 25, 607e616.
Metcalf, R., 1996. Applied entomology in the twenty-first century: needs and prospects. Am. Entomol. 42, 216e227.
Morán, C.A.A., 1993. Importância da agricultura na determinação dos setores-chave na economia brasileira. Teor. Evid. Econ. 1, 107e139.
Moscardi, F., Bueno, A.F., Sosa-Gomez, D.R., Roggia, S., Hoffmann-Campo, C.B., Pomari, A.F., Corso, I.C., Yano, S.A.C., 2012. Artrópodes que atacam as folhas da soja. In: Hoffmann-Campo, C.B., Corrêa-Ferreira, B.S., Moscardi, F. (Eds.), Soja: manejo integrado de insetos e outros artrópodes-praga. Embrapa, Brasília, pp. 211e334.
Oerke, E.C., 2006. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 144, 31e43.
Oerke, E.C., Dehne, H.W., 2004. Safeguarding production - losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Prot. 23, 275e285.
Oerke, E.C., Dehne, H.W., Schönbeck, F., Weber, A., 1994. Crop Production and Crop ProtectioneEstimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam.
Okumura, R.S., Cinque Mariano, D., Dallacort, R., Zorzenoni, T.O., Zaccheo, P.V.C., Oliveira Neto, C.F., Conceição, H.E.O., Lobato, A.K.S., 2013. Agronomic efficiency
ofBacillus thuringiensis(Bt) maize hybrids in pests control on Lucas do Rio Verde city, State of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8, 2232e2239.
Oliveira, C.M., Auad, A.M., Mendes, S.M., Frizzas, M.R., 2013. Economic impact of exotic insect pests in Brazilian agriculture. J. Appl. Entomol. 137, 1e15.
Oliveira, C.M., Frizzas, M.R., 2013. Field biology of the beetleAegopsis bolboceridusin Brazil, with a list of host plant. J. Insect Sci. 13 (48), 1e15.
Oliveira, C.M., Morón, M.A., Frizzas, M.R., 2007. First record ofPhyllophagasp.aff. capillata(Coleoptera: Melolonthidae) as a soybean pest in the Brazilian Cerrado. Fla. Entomol. 90, 772e775.
Panizzi, A.R., 2013. History and contemporary perspectives of the integrated pest management of soybean in Brazil. Neotrop. Entomol. 42, 119e127.
Pedlowski, M.A., Canela, M.C., Terra, M.A.C., Faria, R.M.R., 2012. Modes of pesticides utilization by Brazilian smallholders and their implications for human health and the environment. Crop Prot. 31, 113e118.
Pimentel, D., 1976. World food crisis: energy and pests. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 22, 20e26.
Pimentel, D., 1986. Agroecology and economics. In: Kogan, M. (Ed.), Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management Practice. Wiley, New York, pp. 299e
319.
Pimentel, D., 2005. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesti-cides primarily in the United States. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 7, 229e252.
Pimentel, D., 2009. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesti-cides primarily in the United States. In: Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K. (Eds.), Inte-grated Pest Management: Innovation-development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 89e111.
Pimentel, D., Acquay, H., Biltonen, M., Rice, P., Silva, M., Nelson, J., Lipner, V., Giordano, S., Horowitz, A., D’Amore, M., 1992. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. Bioscience 42, 750e760.
SEAGRI, 2013. Secretaria da Agricultura, Irrigação e Reforma Agrária. Governo da Bahia e Mapa buscam estratégias para enfrentar a pragaHelicoverpano Oeste baiano. Available: http://www.seagri.ba.gov.br/not_Governo_da_Bahia_e_ Mapa_estrategias_praga_Helicoverpa_032013.pdf(last access: April 2013). SIGTAP, 2013. Sistema de Gerenciamento da Tabela de Procedimentos,
Medi-camentos e OPM do SUS. Procedimento Publicado. Available:http://sigtap. datasus.gov.br/tabela-unificada/app/sec/procedimento/exibir/0308020030/03/ 2013(last access: March 2013).
SINDAG, 2013. Sindicato Nacional da Indústria de Produtos para Defesa Agrícola. Dados básicos. SINDAG, São Paulo.
SINITOX, 2013. Sistema Nacional de Informações Toxico Farmacológicas. Registros de intoxicações. Dados por agentes tóxicos. Brasil. Available: http://www.
fiocruz.br/sinitox_novo/media/Agrotoxicos%20em%20geral%202009%20-% 20Tabela%201.pdf(last access: March 2013).
Sousa Ramalho, F., Azeredo, T.L., Nascimento, A.R.B., Fernandes, F.S., Nascimento Júnior, J.L., Malaquias, J.B., Silva, C.A.D., Zanuncio, J.C., 2011. Feeding of fall armyworm,Spodoptera frugiperda, on Bt transgenic cotton and its isoline. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 139, 207e214.
USDA, 2013. United States Department of Agriculture. Production, Supply and Distribution Online (Março, 2010). Available:www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline(last access: March 2013).
Walker, P.T., 1983. Crop losses: the need to quantify the effects of pests, diseases and weeds on agricultural production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 9, 119e158.
