Using earthworm avoidance behaviour to assess the toxicity of formulated herbicides and their active ingredients on natural soils
Background, aim, and scope
Soil quality has been threatened by intensive agricultural practises, namely those relying on the application of pesticides, such as herbicides. Among the non-target terrestrial organisms exposed to such scenarios, earthworms are key ecological receptors widely used in ecotoxicological studies. As such, this work aims to assess the effects of two herbicide active ingredients (a.i.)—sulcotrione and penoxsulam—and their respective commercial formulations—MIKADO® and VIPER® (referred as Mikado and Viper)—on the avoidance behaviour of Eisenia andrei. In an attempt to enhance the ecological relevance of the generated toxicity data, the avoidance tests were run with standard (LUFA 2.2; L) and natural soils (from corn and rice fields), as long as their habitat function did not constrain the earthworm behaviour.
Earthworms were bred in the lab before test conductance. The natural soils used as substrates were collected before the cropping season on corn (C) and rice (R) fields, which are integrated in a wide area exploited for agriculture. Their physico-chemical characterization evolved the determination of pH (H2O, KCl), conductivity, organic matter (OM) and clay/silt contents, and water-holding capacity (WHC). The avoidance tests intended to ascertain (1) the random distribution of earthworms in the natural soils C and R (dual-control tests), (2) the habitat function of natural soils against each other and against L soil, (3) the effect of active ingredients and formulated herbicides on E. andrei behaviour. Avoidance tests with the a.i.s were only performed in L soil. Data evaluation followed ISO (2005) guidelines.
C and R soils presented higher OM (5.1% and 4.5%, respectively) and clay/silt (53.3 and 43.1, respectively) contents and WHC (107.2 and 109.9%, respectively) than L soil (4.1, 21.4 and 48.0%, correspondingly). Earthworms distributed randomly in dual-control tests, but preferred R soil significantly, relative to L or C soils. The LOEC and EC50 values calculated for sulcotrione (>1,000.0 and 1,263.3 mg a.i. kg-1, respectively) and Mikado (1,012.8 and 1,301.3 mg a.i. kg-1, respectively) were much higher than those calculated for penoxsulam (100 and 80.6 mg a.i. kg-1, respectively) or Viper (52.7 and 51.5 mg a.i. kg-1, respectively), when L soil was used as substrate. Moreover, the habitat function of L soil contaminated with the formulated herbicide Viper was more constrained relative to that of the a.i. penoxsulam. Viper induced higher % avoidance on E. andrei exposed to the contaminated L soil compared to that under the R soil.
The response of earthworms to R (attraction) and C (avoidance) soils could be related, not only to the quantity of OM content, but also to the quality of organic and inorganic fractions of soil, beyond other intrinsic properties of soils. Both Mikado and sulcotrione impacted the behaviour of E. andrei only slightly. This endpoint was more affected under penoxsulam or Viper exposures on L soil, being the latter-formulated product even more repellent for E. andrei than the a.i. The effect of adjuvants added to the commercial formulation of Viper, may have increased the toxicity of the a.i. Thereby, our results reinforce the need for a careful assessment of the impacts of formulated products. Furthermore, since there was a reduction in earthworm % avoidance under Viper exposures on the natural soil R, it was possible that pesticide bioavailability had been reduced by its sorption to OM and clay mineral sorption sites.
Though the standard L soil should be used for reproducibility and comparison means, other natural soils should be added to the assessment of chemicals, for sake of ecological relevance. Both herbicides induced avoidance behaviour on E. andrei, albeit stronger effects were denoted by penoxsulam and its respective formulated product, Viper. Overall, avoidance tests provided a sensitive, valuable and feasible response either to compare the habitat function of different standard and agricultural natural soils or to test the effect of herbicides.
Recommendations and perspectives
An effort should be made to enlarge the terrestrial ecotoxicological database as a way to fulfil the huge lack of information available for this ecosystem. In this context, additional research congregating a potential linkage between physiological activities sustaining the regular metabolism of earthworms and their avoidance behaviour or even their reproductive effects would be welcomed, especially in what regards formulated pesticides. Such approach would provide a robust and comprehensive understanding of chemical effects. Furthermore, it is encouraged that natural soils should be used to improve the reliability of chemical testing.
KeywordsBehavioural endpoint Eisenia andrei Herbicides MIKADO® Standard vs. natural soils VIPER®
- Antunes SC, Castro BB, Pereira R, Gonçalves F (2008) Contribution for tier 1 of the ecological risk assessment of Cunha Baixa uranium mine (Central Portugal): II. Soil ecotoxicological screening. Sci Total Environ 390(2–3):387–395Google Scholar
- Bayer CropScience (2004) MIKADO Safety Data Sheet according to Directive EEC 2001/58. Online at http://www.bayercropscience.pt
- Bird J, Beer A, Guthrie L (2006) Products: new product pipelines slim down. In: Jarvis P (ed) Agrow Magazine, Issue 1. Leverkusen, Germany, p 44Google Scholar
- CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2006) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Protection of Soil and Amending Directive 2004/35/EC. COM(2006) 232 final, 2006/0086 (COD), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- Cox C, Surgan M (2006) Unidentified inert ingredients in pesticides: implications for human and environmental health. Environ Health Persp 114(12):1803–1806Google Scholar
- EC (European Commission) (2002) Guidance Document on Terrestrial Ecotoxicology Under Council Directive 91/414/EEC. Draft Working Document. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. SANCO/10329/2002, rev. 2 final, 17 October 2002, 39 ppGoogle Scholar
- EC (European Commission) (2003) Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Part II., Joint research Centre, IspraGoogle Scholar
- ECPA (European Crop Protection Association) (2003) ECPA Statistical Review 2002. D/03/EJ/12560, Brussels, 31 ppGoogle Scholar
- Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- EEC (European Environment Commission) (1991) Council directive no. 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Official Journal of the European Union L230 of 19.08.1991:1–32Google Scholar
- FAOUN (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1984) Physical and chemical methods of soil and water analysis. Soils Bull 10:1–275Google Scholar
- Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp 333Google Scholar
- FOOTPRINT PPDB (The FOOTPRINT Pesticide Properties Database) (2008) FOOTPRINT: creating tools for pesticide risk assessment and management in Europe. Research Project in the 6th Framework Program for Research and Technological Development. [Online]. Retrieved on August from: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/en/index.htm
- Gerrard J (2000) Fundamentals of soils. Routledge Fundamentals of Physical Geography, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, Great Britain, 230 ppGoogle Scholar
- ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2005) Draft ISO-17512: Soil Quality and Avoidance test for evaluating the quality of soils and the toxicity of chemicals. Test with earthworms (Eisenia fetida/andrei). Geneve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Løkke H, van Gestel CAM (1998) Handbook of soil invertebrate toxicity tests. Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
- Natal-da-Luz T, Amorim M, Römbke J, Sousa JP (2008) Avoidance tests with earthworms and springtails: Defining the minimum exposure time to observe a significant response. Ecotox Environ Saf, doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.09.005
- Roberts DW, Knuteson JA, Jackson R (2003) The dissipation of penoxsulam in flooded rice fields. In: Pesticides in Air, Plant, Soil & Water Systems: XII Symposium Pesticide Chemistry, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry of the Catholic University, Piacenza, Italy, pp 349–357Google Scholar
- SPAC (Soil and Plant Analysis Council) (2000) Handbook of reference methods. CRC, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
- Tomlin CDS (2000) The pesticide manual, 12th edn. British Crop Protection Council, SurreyGoogle Scholar
- U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2007) Penoxsulam. Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Fish and Shellfish. PC Code: 119031, Petition no. 5F7012, DP Num: 325461. U.S.EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC 20460Google Scholar
- WHO (World Health Organization) (2005) The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification. International Program on Chemical Safety, NLM Classification: WA 240, WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA, p 662Google Scholar