Acute toxicity and hazard assessment of Rodeo®, X-77 Spreader®, and Chem-Trol® to aquatic invertebrates

  • C. J. Henry
  • K. F. Higgins
  • K. J. Buhl
Article
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

The herbicide Rodeo® provides waterfowl managers with an effective chemical tool for creating open water habitats in wetlands if its use does not adversely affect native invertebrate communities. The survival of caged Chironomus spp. (midge), Hyalella azteca (amphipod), Stagnicola elodes (pond snail), and Nephelopsis obscura (leech) was assessed in prairie pothole wetlands treated by air with a tank mixture of Rodeo®, the surfactant X-77 Spreader®, and the drift retardant Chem-Trol® at a rate recommended for controlling cattails. Laboratory studies were then conducted to determine the acute toxicities of Rodeo®, X-77 Spreader®, and Chem-Trol®, individually and in simulated tank mixtures, to the same invertebrates and to Daphnia magna in reconstituted water representative of these wetlands. There was no difference in the survival of caged invertebrates between treated and reference wetlands after 21 days. Based on nominal concentrations of the formulations, X-77 Spreader® (LC50s=2.0–14.1 mg/L) was about 83–136 times more toxic than Rodeo® (LC50s=218–1216 mg/L) to aquatic invertebrates. Chem-Trol® killed ≤10% of the animals at 10,000 mg/L and ≤50% of the animals at 28,000 mg/L. Daphnia magna were more sensitive than the other species to X-77 Spreader®, Rodeo®, and the simulated Rodeo® tank mixture (RTM). The joint toxic action of the RTM was additive for amphipods and midges, greater than additive for leeches, and was less than additive for daphnids. X-77 Spreader® was the major toxic component in the RTM. Binary mixtures of X-77 Spreader®, Rodeo®, and Chem-Trol® at tank mixture and equitoxic ratios also showed additive toxicity to amphipods. The use of Rodeo® (applied as a tank mixture with X-77 Spreader® and Chem-Trol®) as a management tool in wetlands does not pose an acute hazard to native aquatic invertebrates because the concentrations of Rodeo®, X-77 Spreader®, and Chem-Trol® found to be acutely toxic to these invertebrates were much higher than their expected or measured concentrations in water from wetlands treated with the RTM.

Keywords

Acute Toxicity Invertebrate Community Aquatic Invertebrate Effective Chemical Pond Snail 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. APHA (American Public Health Association), AWWA (American Water Works Association), WPCF (Water Pollution Control Federation) (1989) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 17th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (1988) Standard guide for conducting renewal life-cycle toxicity tests with Daphnia magna. Designation E 1193–87. In: 1990 annual book of ASTM standards, Vol 11.04. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 765–781Google Scholar
  3. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (1989) Standard practice for conducting acute toxicity tests with fishes, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians, Designation E729–88a. In: 1990 annual book of ASTM standards, vol 11.04. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 360–379Google Scholar
  4. Biever KD (1965) A rearing technique for the colonization of chironomid midges. Ann Entomol Soc Am 58:135–136Google Scholar
  5. Bronstad JO, Friestad HO (1985) Behavior of glyphosate in the aquatic environment. In: Grossbard E, Atkinson D (eds) The herbicide glyphosate. Butterworths, London, pp 200–205Google Scholar
  6. Buhl KJ, Faerber NL (1989) Acute toxicity of selected herbicides and surfactants to larvae of the midge Chironomus riparius. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 18:530–536Google Scholar
  7. Corns WG, Gupta RK (1971) Chemical control of cattail, Typha latifolia. Can J Plant Sci 51:491–497Google Scholar
  8. Folmar LC, Sanders HO, Julin AM (1979) Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 8:269–278Google Scholar
  9. Hartman WA, Martin DB (1984) Effect of suspended bentonite clay on the acute toxicity of glyphosate to Daphnia pulex and Lemna minor. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 33:355–361Google Scholar
  10. Henry CJ (1992) Effects of Rodeo® herbicide on aquatic invertebrates and fathead minnows. MS thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, 63 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Hensley DL, Beuerman DSN, Carpenter DL (1978) The inactivation of glyphosate by various soils and metal salts. Weed Res 18:287–291Google Scholar
  12. Ingersoll CG, Nelson MK (1990) Testing sediment toxicity with Hyalella azteca (Amphipoda) and Chironomus riparius (Diptera). In: Landis WG, van der Schalie (eds) Aquatic toxicology and risk assessment: Thirteenth volume, ASTM STP 1096. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 93–109Google Scholar
  13. Kantrud HA (1986) Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding waterfowl in prairie wetlands—a literature review. US Fish and Wildl Serv Fish Wildl Tech Rep 3. Washington, DC, 15 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Kenaga EE (1978) Test organisms and methods useful for early assessment of acute toxicity of chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 12:1322–1329Google Scholar
  15. Marking LL, Dawson VK (1975) Method for assessment of toxicity or efficacy of mixtures of chemicals. In: Investigations in fish control. US Fish and Wildl Serv, Washington, DC, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  16. Marking LL (1985) In: Rand GM, Petrocelli SR (eds) Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing Corp, Washington, DC, pp 164–176Google Scholar
  17. Mayer FL, Jr, Ellersieck MR (1988) Experiences with single-species tests for acute toxic effects on freshwater animals. Ambio 17:367–375Google Scholar
  18. Merritt RW, Cummins KW (1984) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, second ed. Kendall/Hunt Publ, Dubuque, IA, 722 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitchell DG, Chapman PM, Long TJ (1987) Acute toxicity of Roundup® and Rodeo® Herbicides to rainbow trout, chinook, and coho salmon. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 39:1028–1035Google Scholar
  20. Monsanto Company (1988) Rodeo® herbicide for aquatic vegetation management. Monsanto Agric Co Tech Man, St. Louis, MO, 20 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Monsanto Company (1993) Toxicity summary sheet. St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  22. Moye HA, St John PA (1980) A critical comparison of pre-column and post-column fluorogenic labeling for the HPLC analysis of pesticide residues. In: Harvey J, Zweig G (eds) ACS symposium series 136. Washington, DC, pp 89–102Google Scholar
  23. Murkin HR, Ward P (1980) Early spring cutting to control cattail in a northern marsh. Wildl Soc Bull 8(3):254–256Google Scholar
  24. Murkin HR, Kaminski RM, Titman RD (1982) Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Can J Zool 10:2324–2332Google Scholar
  25. Murkin HR, Wrubleski DA (1988) Aquatic invertebrates of freshwater wetlands: function and ecology. In: Hook DD et al. (eds) The ecology and management of wetlands. Vol 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR, pp 239–249Google Scholar
  26. Nimmo DR (1985) Pesticides. In: Rand GM, Petrocelli SR (eds) Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing Corp, Washington, DC, pp 335–373Google Scholar
  27. Peltier BR, Weber CI (1985) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents to freshwater and marine organisms, 3rd ed. US Environ Protection Agency Publ EPA/600/4-85/013, Cincinnati, OH, 216 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Pennak RW (1989) Freshwater invertebrates of the United States, 3rd ed. John Wiley, 628 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Solberg KL, Higgins KE (1993) Effects of glyphosate herbicide on cattails, invertebrates, and waterfowl in South Dakota wetlands. Wildl Soc Bull 21:299–307Google Scholar
  30. Sprague JB (1970) Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish. II. Utilizing and applying bioassay results. Water Res 4:3–32Google Scholar
  31. Swanson GA, Krapu GL, Serie JR (1979) Foods of laying female dabbling ducks on the breeding grounds. In: Bookout TA (ed) Waterfowl and wetlands—an integrated review. Proc 1977 Symp. The Wildlife Society, NC Sect, Madison, WI, pp 47–57Google Scholar
  32. Swanson GA, Meyer MI, Adomaitis VA (1985) Foods consumed by breeding mallards on wetlands of south-central North Dakota. J Wildl Manage 49:197–203Google Scholar
  33. Swanson GA, Winter TC, Adomaitis VA, LaBaugh JW (1988) Chemical characteristics of prairie lakes in south-central North Dakota—their potential for influencing use by fish and wildlife. Fish and Wildl Tech Rep 18, US Fish and Wildl Serv, Washington, DC, 44 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Urban DJ, Cook NJ (1986) Hazard Evaluation Division, standard evaluation procedure, ecological risk assessment. US Environ Protection Agency Publ EPA-540/9-85-001. Washington, DC, 96 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. US Environmental Protection Agency (1980) Manual of analytical methods for analysis of pesticides in humans and environmental samples. EPA-600/8-80-038, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. -- (1990) Code of Fed. Regul. 40:parts 150–189, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. J. Henry
    • 1
  • K. F. Higgins
    • 1
  • K. J. Buhl
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitSouth Dakota State UniversityBrookingsUSA
  2. 2.Yankton Field Research StationU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Contaminant Research CenterYanktonUSA

Personalised recommendations