Guy Smagghe

Prof. Guy Smagghe

Insects, Gent, Flanders, Belgium
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

35Years (1992-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 September 2003 in Biomacromolecules
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EREntsar I. Rabea
Entsar I. Rabea
MBMohamed E.-T. Badawy
Mohamed E.-T. Badawy
CSChristian Stevens
Christian Stevens
Guy SmaggheGuy Smagghe
Guy Smagghe
WSWalter Steurbaut
Walter Steurbaut

23 November 2011 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MGMiodrag Grbic
Miodrag Grbic
TLThomas Van Leeuwen
Thomas Van Leeuwen
RCRichard M. Clark
Richard M. Clark
SRStephane Rombauts
Stephane Rombauts
PRPierre Rouzé
Pierre Rouzé
YPYves Van de Peer
Yves Van de Peer
The spider mite Tetranychus urticae is a cosmopolitan agricultural pest with an extensive host plant range and an extreme record of pesticide resistance. Here we present the completely sequenced and annotated spider mite genome, representing the first complete chelicerate genome. At 90 megabases T. urticae has the smallest sequenced arthropod genome. Compared with other arthropods, the spider mite genome shows unique changes in the hormonal environment and organization of the Hox complex, and also reveals evolutionary innovation of silk production. We find strong signatures of polyphagy and detoxification in gene families associated with feeding on different hosts and in new gene families acquired by lateral gene transfer. Deep transcriptome analysis of mites feeding on different plants shows how this pest responds to a changing host environment. The T. urticae genome thus offers new insights into arthropod evolution and plant–herbivore interactions, and provides unique opportunities for developing novel plant protection strategies.

18 February 2012 in Ecotoxicology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TBTjeerd Blacquière
Tjeerd Blacquière
Guy SmaggheGuy Smagghe
Guy Smagghe
CGCornelis A.M. Van Gestel
Cornelis A.M. Van Gestel
VMVeerle Mommaerts
Veerle Mommaerts
Neonicotinoid insecticides are successfully applied to control pests in a variety of agricultural crops; however, they may not only affect pest insects but also non-target organisms such as pollinators. This review summarizes, for the first time, 15 years of research on the hazards of neonicotinoids to bees including honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. The focus of the paper is on three different key aspects determining the risks of neonicotinoid field concentrations for bee populations: (1) the environmental neonicotinoid residue levels in plants, bees and bee products in relation to pesticide application, (2) the reported side-effects with special attention for sublethal effects, and (3) the usefulness for the evaluation of neonicotinoids of an already existing risk assessment scheme for systemic compounds. Although environmental residue levels of neonicotinoids were found to be lower than acute/chronic toxicity levels, there is still a lack of reliable data as most analyses were conducted near the detection limit and for only few crops. Many laboratory studies described lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on the foraging behavior, and learning and memory abilities of bees, while no effects were observed in field studies at field-realistic dosages. The proposed risk assessment scheme for systemic compounds was shown to be applicable to assess the risk for side-effects of neonicotinoids as it considers the effect on different life stages and different levels of biological organization (organism versus colony). Future research studies should be conducted with field-realistic concentrations, relevant exposure and evaluation durations. Molecular markers may be used to improve risk assessment by a better understanding of the mode of action (interaction with receptors) of neonicotinoids in bees leading to the identification of environmentally safer compounds.

1 March 2010 in Journal of Insect Physiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HHHanneke Huvenne
Hanneke Huvenne
Guy SmaggheGuy Smagghe
Guy Smagghe

1 February 2011 in Journal of Insect Physiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
OTOlle Terenius
Olle Terenius
Alexie PapanicolaouAlexie Papanicolaou
Alexie Papanicolaou
JGJennie S. Garbutt
Jennie S. Garbutt
IEIoannis Eleftherianos
Ioannis Eleftherianos
HHHanneke Huvenne
Hanneke Huvenne
Guy SmaggheGuy Smagghe
Guy Smagghe

11 March 2016 in Annual Review of Entomology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Raul Narciso GuedesRaul Narciso Guedes
Raul Narciso Guedes
Guy SmaggheGuy Smagghe
Guy Smagghe
John StarkJohn Stark
John Stark
NDNicolas Desneux
Nicolas Desneux
More than six decades after the onset of wide-scale commercial use of synthetic pesticides and more than fifty years after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, pesticides, particularly insecticides, arguably remain the most influential pest management tool around the globe. Nevertheless, pesticide use is still a controversial issue and is at the regulatory forefront in most countries. The older generation of insecticide groups has been largely replaced by a plethora of novel molecules that exhibit improved human and environmental safety profiles. However, the use of such compounds is guided by their short-term efficacy; the indirect and subtler effects on their target species, namely arthropod pest species, have been neglected. Curiously, comprehensive risk assessments have increasingly explored effects on nontarget species, contrasting with the majority of efforts focused on the target arthropod pest species. The present review mitigates this shortcoming by hierarchically exploring within an ecotoxicology framework applied to integrated pest management the myriad effects of insecticide use on arthropod pest species.