Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 33, pp 26120–26124 | Cite as

No effect of insect repellents on the behaviour of Lymnaea stagnalis at environmentally relevant concentrations

Research Article

Abstract

Insect repellents are widely applied to various materials and to both human and animal skin to deter mosquitoes and ticks. The most common deterrent compounds applied are DEET, EBAAP and icaridin (picaridin, Bayrepel). Due to their extensive application, these repellents are frequently detected in surface waters in considerable concentrations. As these compounds are designed to alter invertebrates’ behaviour rather than to intoxicate them, we hypothesised that insect repellents have the potential to modify the natural behaviour of non-target invertebrates in natural freshwater bodies. To test this, we used a well-established laboratory assay designed to quantify the odour-mediated foraging behaviour of freshwater gastropods and the great pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis (Linnaeus, 1758) as a model organism to test for potential deterrent effects of insect repellents on aquatic snails. Using a wide concentration range from the picogramme per litre to microgramme per litre range (and by far exceeding the range of concentrations reported from natural waters), we found no evidence for a deterrent effect of either of the three repellents on foraging L. stagnalis. Our data and other recent studies give no indication for undesirable behavioural alterations by common insect repellents in surface waters.

Keywords

DEET EBAAP Food searching Gastropoda Icaridin Infochemicals Semiochemicals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jana Moelzner, Nicole Roth and Daniel Schaefer for excellent laboratory assistance and Ruediger Berghahn for helpful suggestions. Icaridin (Saltidin) was kindly provided by Saltigo, Leverkusen, Germany.

References

  1. Altizer S, Ostfeld RS, Johnson PTJ, Kutz S, Harvell CD (2013) Climate change and infectious diseases: from evidence to a predictive framework. Science 341:514–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker ES, Dobrescu I, Straile D, Holmgren M (2013) Testing the stress gradient hypothesis in herbivore communities: facilitation peaks at intermediate nutrient levels. Ecology 94:1776–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhard M, Müller J, Knepper TP (2006) Biodegradation of persistent polar pollutants in wastewater: comparison of an optimised lab-scale membrane bioreactor and activated sludge treatment. Water Res 40:3419–3428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Büchel K, Bendin J, Gharbi A, Rahlenbeck S, Dautel H (2015) Repellent efficacy of DEET, Icaridin, and EBAAP against Ixodes ricinus and Ixodes scapularis nymphs (Acari, Ixodidae). Ticks Tick Borne Dis 6:494–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalesman S, Rundle SD, Coleman RA, Cotton PA (2006) Cue association and antipredator behaviour in a pulmonate snail, Lymnaea stagnalis. Anim Behav 71:789–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalesman S, Rundle SD, Cotton PA (2009) Crawl-out behaviour in response to predation cues in an aquatic gastropod: insights from artificial selection. Evol Ecol 23:907–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ECHA -European Chemicals Agency (2016) Biocidal active substances. http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/biocidal-active-substances
  9. Elger A, Barrat-Segretain M-H, Amoros C (2002) Plant palatability and disturbance level in aquatic habitats: an experimental approach using the snail Lymnaea stagnalis (L.) Freshw Biol 47:931–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2010) CIRCABC Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations, Businesses and Citizens. https://circabc.europa.eu
  11. Fink P, Von Elert E, Jüttner F (2006a) Oxylipins from freshwater diatoms act as attractants for a benthic herbivore. Arch Hydrobiol 167:561–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fink P, von Elert E, Jüttner F (2006b) Volatile foraging kairomones in the littoral zone: attraction of an herbivorous freshwater gastropod to algal odors. J Chem Ecol 32:1867–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fink P, Moelzner J, Berghahn R, von Elert E (2017) Do insect repellents induce drift behaviour in aquatic non-target organisms? Water Res 108:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz TM, Miller JH, Hebert AA (2008) Insect repellents: historical perspectives and new developments. J Am Acad Dermatol 58:865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klaschka U (2008) The infochemical effect—a new chapter in ecotoxicology. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15:452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klaschka U (2009) A new challenge - development of test systems for the infochemical effect. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:370–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knepper TP (2004a) Analysis and fate of insect repellents. Water Sci Technol 50:301–308Google Scholar
  18. Knepper TP (2004b) Analysis and mass spectrometric characterization of the insect repellent Bayrepel and its main metabolite Bayrepel-acid. J Chromatogr A 1046:159–166Google Scholar
  19. Lampert W, McCauley E, Manly BFJ (2003) Trade-offs in the vertical distribution of zooplankton: ideal free distribution with costs? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:765–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lürling M (2012) Infodisruption: pollutants interfering with the natural chemical information conveyance in aquatic systems. In: Brönmark C, Hansson L-A (eds) Chemical ecology in aquatic systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Lürling M, Scheffer M (2007) Info-disruption: pollution and the transfer of chemical information between organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 22:374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moelzner J, Fink P (2014) The smell of good food: volatile infochemicals as resource quality indicators. J Anim Ecol 83:1007–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moelzner J, Fink P (2015a) Gastropod grazing on a benthic alga leads to liberation of food-finding infochemicals. Oikos 124:1603–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moelzner J, Fink P (2015b) Consumer patchiness explained by volatile infochemicals in a freshwater ecosystem. Ecosphere 6:35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nendza M, Klaschka U, Berghahn R (2013) Suitable test substances for proof of concept regarding infochemical effects in surface waters. Environ Sci Eur 25:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nystrom P, Perez JR (1998) Crayfish predation on the common pond snail (Lymnaea stagnalis): the effect of habitat complexity and snail size on foraging efficiency. Hydrobiologia 368:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Von Elert E (2012) Information conveyed by chemical cues. In: Brönmark C, Hansson L-A (eds) Chemical ecology in aquatic systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Von Elert E, Loose CJ (1996) Predator-induced diel vertical migration in Daphnia: enrichment and preliminary chemical characterization of a kairomone exuded by fish. J Chem Ecol 22:885–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Von Elert E, Preuss K, Fink P (2016) Infodisruption of inducible anti-predator defenses through commercial insect repellents? Environ Pollut 210:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cologne Biocenter, Workgroup Aquatic Chemical EcologyUniversity of CologneKölnGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Zoomorphology and Cell BiologyHeinrich-Heine-University of DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations