Ecotoxicology

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 219–244 | Cite as

A comparison of the fate and effects of two pyrethroid insecticides (lambda-cyhalothrin and cypermethrin) in pond mesocosms

  • Deborah Farmer
  • Ian R. Hill
  • Stephen J. Maund
Paper

The fate and effects of two pyrethroid insecticides (lambda-cyhalothrin and cypermethrin) were investigated in replicated 25 m3 pond mesocosms. Three pesticide treatments which simulated spray drift deposition were examined: 0.7 g a.i. ha-1 cypermethrin and 0.17 and 1.7 g a.i. ha-1 lambda-cyhalothrin. Based on the use rate and pesticidal activity of the chemicals, the cypermethrin and lower lambda-cyhalothrin rates were approximately equivalent. After applications, pyrethroid residues in the water column declined rapidly. Treatment-related effects were observed on some macroinvertebrate taxa, most notably the Asellidae and Gammaridae. Surfacedwelling insects also suffered initial knock-down, particularly in the 1.7 g a.i. ha-1 lambda-cyhalothrin treatment, but there was recovery after the spray period. No adverse effects occurred on algae, macrophytes or zooplankton, but there were occasional enhancements (e.g. algal biomass and abundances of copepod nauplii and Rotifera) which may have been indirect effects. An overall comparison of the treatments indicated that the higher lambda-cyhalothrin rate had the greatest effects, whilst the cypermethrin application had a somewhat greater impact than the lower lambda-cyhalothrin treatment rate (due to effects on peracarid crustaceans). The study indicated that should spray drift occur at the levels expected for either pyrethroid's normal use patterns, potential impacts on natural aquatic ecosystems would be minor and transient.

Keywords

pyrethroids spray drift mesocosm residues aquatic effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon (1979) Biological Methods for the Surveillance of River Water Quality. University of Aston Report, DOE. Contract No. DER/480/100.Google Scholar
  2. Eberhardt, L.L. (1978) Appraising variability in population studies. J. Wildl. Manag. 42, 207–38.Google Scholar
  3. Gaarder, T. and Gran, M.M. (1927) Investigations of the production of plankton in Oslo Fjord. Rapp. Process-Verbaux. Reunions. Cons. Perma. Int. Explor. Mer. 42.Google Scholar
  4. Ganzelmeier, M., Koepp, H., Spangenberg, R. and Streloke, M. (1993) Wann Pflanzenschutzmittel Abstandsauflagen erhalten. Pflanzenschutz-Praxis 3/1993, 14–15.Google Scholar
  5. Hadfield, S.T., Sadler, J.K., Bolygo, E. and Hill, I.R. (1992) Development and validation of residue methods for the determination of the pyrethroids lambda-cyhalothrin and cypermethrin in natural waters. Pestic. Sci. 34, 207–13.Google Scholar
  6. Hamer, M.J., Maund, S.J. and Hill, I.R. (1992) Laboratory methods for evaluating the impact of pesticides on water/sediment organisms. Brighton Crop Protect. Conf.-Pests Dis. 2, 487–96.Google Scholar
  7. Heimbach, F., Pflüger, W. and Ratte, H.-T. (1992) Use of small artificial ponds for assessments of hazards to aquatic ecosystems. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 27–34.Google Scholar
  8. Heinis, L.J. and Knuth, M.L. (1992) The mixing, distribution and persistence of esfenvalerate within littoral enclosures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 11–25.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, I.R. (1985) Effects on non-target organisms in terrestrial and aquatic environments. In Leahey, J.P. ed. The pyrethroid insecticides, pp. 151–262. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Hill, I.R. (1989) Aquatic organisms and pyrethroids. Pestic. Sci. 27, 429–65.Google Scholar
  11. Hill, I.R., Shaw, J.L. and Maund, S.J. (1994a) Review of aquatic field tests with pyrethroid insecticides. In Hill, I.R., Heimbach, F., Leeuwangh, P. and Matthiessen, P. eds. Freshwater field tests for hazard assessment of chemicals, pp. 249–71. Michigan: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, I.R., Travis, K.Z. and Ekoniak, P. (1994b) Spray-drift and run-off of foliar applied pyrethroids to aquatic mesocosms: rates, frequencies and methods. In: Graney, R.L., Kennedy, J.H. and Rodgers, J.H. eds. Aquatic mesocosm studies in ecological risk assessment, pp. 201–40. Special Publication, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Michigan: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Hurlbert, S.H. (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54, 187–211.Google Scholar
  14. Lind, O.T. (1979) Handbook of Common Methods in Limnology. St Louis, Toronto, London: The C.V. Mosby Co.Google Scholar
  15. Lozano, S.J., Brazner, J.C., Knuth, M.L., Heinis, L.J., Sargent, K.W., Tanner, D.K., Anderson, L.E., O'Halloran, S.L., Bertelsen, S.L., Jensen, D.A., Kline, E.R., Balcer, M.D., Stay, F.S. and Siefert, R.E. (1989) Effects, Persistence and Distribution of Esfenvelerate in Littoral Enclosures. US EPA Duluth and University of Wisconsin-Superior, Report DU E104/PPA 06/7592 A.Google Scholar
  16. Lozano, S.J., O'Halloran, S.L., Sargent, K.W. and Brazner, J.C. (1992) Effects of esfenvalerate on aquatic organisms in littoral enclosures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 35–47.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, T.A. and Salgado, V.L. (1985) The mode of action of pyrethroids on insects. In Leahey, J.P. ed. The pyrethroid insecticides, pp. 151–262. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Muir, D.C.G., Rawn, G.P. and Grift, N.P. (1985) Fate of the pyrethroid insecticide deltamethrin in small ponds: a mass balance study. J. Agricult. Food Chem. 33, 603–9.Google Scholar
  19. Shaw, J.L., Moore, M., Kennedy, J.H. and Hill, I.R. (1994) Design and statistical analysis of field aquatic mesocosm studies. In Graney, R.L., Kennedy, J.H. and Rodgers, J.H. eds. Aquatic mesocosm studies in ecological risk assessment, pp. 85–104. Special Publication, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Michigan: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1981) Biometry, 2nd edition. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  21. Stephenson, R.R. (1982) Aquatic toxicology of cypermethrin. 1. Acute toxicity to some freshwater fish and invertebrates in laboratory tests. Aquatic Toxicol. 2, 175–85.Google Scholar
  22. Tooby, T.E., Thompson, A.N., Rycroft, R.J., Black, I.A. and Hewson, R.T. (1981) A Pond Study to Investigate the Effects of Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates of Deltamethrin Applied Directly onto Water. UK MAFF Report PRD 1276.Google Scholar
  23. Wetzel, R.G. (1983) Limnology, 2nd edition. Saunders College Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Yasuno, M., Hanazato, T., Iwakuma, T., Takamura, K., Ueno, R. and Takamura, N. (1988) Effects of permethrin on phytoplankton and zooplankton in an enclosure ecosystem in a pond. Hydrobiologia 159, 247–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Farmer
    • 1
  • Ian R. Hill
    • 1
  • Stephen J. Maund
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecology and Soil Science Section, Zeneca AgrochemicalsJealott's Hill Research StationBracknellUK

Personalised recommendations