Response of common grackles to dietary concentrations of four organophosphate pesticides

  • Christian E. Grue
Article

Abstract

Behavioral and physiological responses of common grackles to dietary concentrations of dicrotophos, fenitrothion, fenthion, and methyl parathion suggest mortality was largely due to pesticide-induced anorexia. Mortality was dose related, though consumption of treated diets was reduced such that birds on different geometrically arranged concentrations of the same pesticide ingested about the same amount of toxicant. Grackles that died lost an average of 28 to 36% of their initial body weight; visible fat was absent and muscle tissue was reduced on the sternum. Mortality of birds exposed to dicrotophos increased between May and August, although chemical intake remained relatively constant, and was associated with a natural decrease in fat and flesh condition in response to increased ambient temperatures and post-nuptial molt. Food consumption in songbirds exposed to organophosphates may be reduced significantly up to 12 hr after exposure ceases because of an unknown effect of these chemicals on their feeding behavior, but not repellency. The results caution against using median lethal dietary concentrations for other than ranking chemicals based on their relative toxicity, particularly in establishing safe environmental levels, and suggest that anorexia and physiological condition may be important factors in mortality of wild birds exposed to organophosphates.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, O. L., Jr.: Families of Birds. New York: Golden Press (1971).Google Scholar
  2. Bart, J.: Effects of acephate and Sevin® on forest birds. J. Wildl. Manage.43, 544 (1979).Google Scholar
  3. Brust, R. A., S. Miyazaki, and G. C. Hodgson: Effect of Dursban® in the drinking water of chicks. J. Econ. Entomol.64, 1179(1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dieter, M. P., and J. L. Ludke: Studies on combined effects of organophosphates and heavy metals in birds. I. Plasma and brain cholinesterase in coturnix quail fed methyl mercury and orally dosed with parathion. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.13, 257 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan, D. B.: Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics11, 1 (1955).Google Scholar
  6. Ellman, G. L., K. D. Courtney, V. Andreas, Jr., and R. M. Featherstone: A new rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity. Biochem. Pharmacol.7, 88 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Finley, R. B., Jr.: Adverse effects on birds of phosphamidon applied to a Montana forest. J. Wildl. Manage.29, 580 (1965).Google Scholar
  8. Fowle, D. C: Effects of phosphamidon on forest birds in New Brunswick. Canadian Wildlife Service Report No.16, Ottawa, Canada (1972).Google Scholar
  9. Heath, R. G., and L. F. Stickel: Protocol for testing the acute and relative toxicity of pesticides to penned birds. In The effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular226, 18 (1965).Google Scholar
  10. Hill, E. F.: Toxicity of selected mosquito larvicides to some common avian species. J. Wildl. Manage.35, 757 (1971).Google Scholar
  11. —: Avoidance of lethal dietary concentrations of insecticide by house sparrows. J. Wildl. Manage.36, 635 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. —: Cholinesterase activity in Japanese quail dusted with carbaryl. Lab. Anim. Sci.29, 349 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill, E. F., R. G. Heath, J. W. Spann, and J. D. Williams: Lethal dietary toxicities of environmental pollutants to birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report—Wildlife191 (1975).Google Scholar
  14. Keith, J. O., and M. S. Mulla: Relative toxicity of five organophosphorus mosquito larvicides to mallard ducks. J. Wildl. Manage.30, 553 (1966).Google Scholar
  15. Kramer, C. Y.: Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replication. Biometrics12, 307 (1956).Google Scholar
  16. Litchfield, J. T., Jr., and F. Wilcoxon: A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J. Pharmacol. and Exp. Therapeutics96, 99 (1949).Google Scholar
  17. Ludke, J. L., E. F. Hill, and M. P. Dieter: Cholinesteratse (ChE) response and related mortality among birds fed ChE inhibitors. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.3, 1 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McLeod, J. M.: The effect of phosphamidon on bird populations in jack pine stands in Quebec. Can. Field Nat.81, 102 (1967).Google Scholar
  19. Mehrotra, K. N., Y. P. Beri, S. S. Misra, and A. Phokela: Physiological effects of malathion on the house sparrow. Indian J. Exp. Biol.5, 219 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Climatological data. Maryland and Delaware82 (1978).Google Scholar
  21. Pearce, P. A.: Side effects of forest spraying in New Brunswick. N. Am. Wildl. Conf.36, 263 (1971).Google Scholar
  22. Pillmore, R. E., E. L. Flickinger, and M. L. Richmond: Forest spraying of Zectran® and its safety to wildlife. J. Forestry69, 721 (1971).Google Scholar
  23. Pope, G. G., and P. Ward: The effects of small applications of an organophosphorus poison, fenthion on the weaver-birdQuelea quelea. Pest. Sci.3, 197 (1972).Google Scholar
  24. Rauen, V. H. M., H. Schriewer, B. Gebauer, M. Abu Tair, N. Ruther, and L. G. The: Multivariate analyse experimenteller Leberschadigungen: Normal parameter des Rattenserums. Arzneim-Forsch23, 108 (1973).Google Scholar
  25. Salter, D. W.: Field and laboratory studies involving some of the effects of parathion on birds. M.S. thesis, University of Nevada, Reno (1966).Google Scholar
  26. Seabloom, R. W., G. L. Pearson, L. W. Oring, and J. R. Reilly: An incident of fenthion mosquito control and subsequent avian mortality. J. Wildl. Diseases9, 18 (1973).Google Scholar
  27. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran: Statistical methods Ames: Iowa State University Press (1967).Google Scholar
  28. Stevenson, H. M.: Florida region: Pesticides. Am. Birds26, 593 (1972).Google Scholar
  29. Stickel, W. H.: Effects on wildlife of newer pesticides and other pollutants. Proc. Ann. Conf. West. Assoc. Game Fish Comm.53, 484 (1974).Google Scholar
  30. Stone, W. B.: Poisoning of wild birds by organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. N.Y. Fish Game J.26, 37 (1979).Google Scholar
  31. Tan, K. H.: An electrophoretic study of some hydrolases from fat-body and haemolymph of adult cave-roachPycnoscelus striatus (Kirby) using selective substrates and inhibitors. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.52C, 127 (1975).Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Department of the Interior: Effects of Bidrin® on rangeland wildlife. In Wildlife research-problems, programs, progress 1967. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Resource Publication74, 55 (1969).Google Scholar
  33. Villeneuve, D. C., M. J. van Logten, E. M. den Tonkelaar, A. G. Rauws, R. Kroes, and G. J. van Esch: The combined effect of food restriction and parathion exposure in rats. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.7, 37 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolfson, A.: The role of the pituitary, fat deposition, and body weight in bird migration. Condor47, 95 (1945).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian E. Grue
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife ServicePatuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurel

Personalised recommendations