Responses of zooplankton andChaoborus to temephos in a natural pond and in the laboratory

  • J. C. Helgen
  • N. J. Larson
  • R. L. Anderson
Article

Abstract

Application of the organophosphorus insecticide temephos to a natural pond in central Minnesota was followed by reduction within 24 hr in all cladocerans, inDiaptomus leptopus and inChaoborus americanus, and increases in cyclopoid copepods, copepod nauplii and the rotiferKeratella cochlearis. Daphnia pulex that reappeared 35 days post-application were ex-ephippial. After application, reproduction of cladocerans andDiaptomus was markedly reduced compared to the previous year, an effect attributed to temephos.Daphnia population density was strongly reduced into the fall season, long after the spring applications, compared with both a reference pond's and the previous season's populations. On-site bioassays demonstrated 24-hr mortalities ofDaphnia andChaoborus that were comparable to the population decreases in the pond. Laboratory toxicity tests showedDaphnia was the most sensitive followed byChaoborus andDiaptomus. Comparable results were seen in the pond population changes,in situ bioassays and laboratory toxicity data forDaphnia and forChaoborus, but sensitivities in the pond were somewhat greater than in the laboratory. Risk assessment research calls for long-term field reproduction analysis to avoid a false “recovery” report, combined with laboratory life cycle analysis and short acute exposure tests.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ali A, Mulla MS (1980) Activity of organophosphate and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides against pestiferous midges in some Southern California flood control channels. Mosq News 40:593–597Google Scholar
  2. — (1978) Effects of chironomid larvicides and diflubenzuron on nontarget invertebrates in residential-recreational lakes. Environ Entomol 7:21–27Google Scholar
  3. Anderson RL, Shubat P (1984) Toxicity of flucythrinate toGammarus lacustris (Amphipoda)Pteronarcys dorsata (Plecoptera) andBrachycentrus americanus (Trichoptera): Importance of exposure duration. Environ Pollut (Ser A) 35:353–65Google Scholar
  4. Fox HM, Gilchrist B, Phear E (1951) Functions of haemoglobin inDaphnia. Proc Roy Soc London (Ser B) 138:514–528Google Scholar
  5. Frank AM, Sjogren RD (1978) Effect of temephos and chlorpyrifos on Crustacea. Mosq News 38:138–139Google Scholar
  6. Frommer R, Nelson J, Gibbs P, Vorgetts J (1983) Dose-time response betweenSimulium vittatum (Diptera: Simuliidae) larvae and ABATE®200e (temephos). Mosq News 43:71–72Google Scholar
  7. Hairston N (1987) Diapause as a predator avoidance adaptation XVIII. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A (eds) Predation Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 281–290Google Scholar
  8. Hairston N, Olds E (1984) Population differences in the timing of diapause: Adaptation in a spatially heterogeneous environment. Oecologia (Berlin) 61:42–48Google Scholar
  9. Helson B, Surgeoner G, Ralley W (1979) Susceptibility ofCulex spp andAedes spp larvae (Diptera: Culicidae) to temephos and chlorphyrifos in southern Ontario. Proc Entomol Soc Ontario 110:79–83Google Scholar
  10. Hughes D, Boyer M, Papst M, Fowle C, Rees G, Baulu P (1980) Persistence of three organophosphorus insecticides in artificial ponds and some biological implications. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 9:269–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaushnik NK, Stephenson GL, Solomon KR, Day KE (1985) Impact of permethrin on Zooplankton communities in limnocorrals. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:77–85Google Scholar
  12. Lynch M (1979) Predation, competition, and Zooplankton community structure: An experimental study. Limnol Oceanogr 24:253–272Google Scholar
  13. Muller R (1970) Laboratory experiments on the control ofCyclops transmitting Guinea worm. Bull World Health Organization 42:563–567Google Scholar
  14. O'Brien R, Winner J, Krochak D (1973) Ecology ofDiaptomus leptopus s a Forbes 1882 (Copepoda: Calanoida) under temporary pond conditions. Hydrobiologia 43:137–155Google Scholar
  15. Papst M, Boyer M (1980) Effects of two organophosphorus insecticides on the chlorophyll and pheopigment concentrations of standing ponds. Hydrobiologia 69:245–250Google Scholar
  16. Rettich R (1979) Laboratory and field investigations in Czechoslovakia with fenitrothion, pirimiphos-methyl, temephos, and other organophosphorous larvicides applied as sprays for control ofCulex pipiens molestus Forskal andAedes cantans Meigen. Mosq News 39:320–328Google Scholar
  17. Ruber E, Baskar J (1968) Sensitivities of selected microcrustacea to eight mosquito toxicants. New Jersey Mosq Exterm Assoc 55:99–103Google Scholar
  18. Sawchyn WW, Hammer UT (1968) Growth and reproduction of someDiaptomus spp in Saskatchewan ponds. Can J Zool 46:511–520Google Scholar
  19. Sailer R, Lienk S (1954) Insect predators of mosquito larvae and pupae in Alaska. Mosq News 14:14–16Google Scholar
  20. Seifert R (1985) Effects of ABATE®(temephos) on non-target aquatic organisms in a natural pond undergoing mosquito control treatment. Progress Report June 1985, US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN 55804Google Scholar
  21. Vinyard G, Menger R (1980)Chaoborus americanus predation on various zooplankters: functional response and behavioral observations. Oecologia 45:90–93Google Scholar
  22. Watras C (1980) Subitaneous and resting eggs of copepods: Relative rates of clutch production byDiaptomus leptopus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:1579–1581Google Scholar
  23. Whiteside M, Lindegaard D (1980) Complimentary procedures for sampling small benthic invertebrates. Oikos 35:317–320Google Scholar
  24. Zaret TM (1980) Predation and Freshwater Communities. Yale University Press, New Haven, 187 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Helgen
    • 1
  • N. J. Larson
    • 2
  • R. L. Anderson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologySt. Olaf CollegeNorthfield
  2. 2.Minnesota Pollution Control AgencySt. Paul
  3. 3.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental Research LaboratoryDuluth

Personalised recommendations