Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 137–147 | Cite as

Using earthworm avoidance behaviour to assess the toxicity of formulated herbicides and their active ingredients on natural soils

  • Catarina Marques
  • Ruth Pereira
  • Fernando Gonçalves
SOILS, SEC 4 • ECOTOXICOLOGY • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

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.

Methodology

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Behavioural endpoint Eisenia andrei Herbicides MIKADO® Standard vs. natural soils VIPER® 

References

  1. Achazi RK (2002) Invertebrates in risk assessment: development of a test battery and of short term biotests for ecological risk assessment of soil. J Soils Sediments 2(4):174–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amorim MJB, Römbke J, Soares AMVM (2005) Avoidance behaviour of Enchytraeus albidus: effects of benomyl, carbendazim, phenmediphan and different soil types. Chemosphere 59:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bayer CropScience (2004) MIKADO Safety Data Sheet according to Directive EEC 2001/58. Online at http://www.bayercropscience.pt
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Chaabane H, Vulliet E, Joux F, Lantoine F, Conan P, Cooper JF, Coste CM (2007) Photodegradation of sulcotrione in various aquatic environments and toxicity of its photoproducts for some marine micro-organisms. Water Res 41(8):1781–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox C, Surgan M (2006) Unidentified inert ingredients in pesticides: implications for human and environmental health. Environ Health Persp 114(12):1803–1806Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. ECPA (European Crop Protection Association) (2003) ECPA Statistical Review 2002. D/03/EJ/12560, Brussels, 31 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Farenhorst A (2006) Importance of soil organic matter fractions in soil-landscape and regional assessments of pesticide sorption and leaching in soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1005–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp 333Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Garcia M, Römbke J, de Brito MT, Scheffczyk A (2008) Effects of three pesticides on the avoidance behavior of earthworms in laboratory tests performed under temperate and tropical conditions. Environ Pollut 153(2):450–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerrard J (2000) Fundamentals of soils. Routledge Fundamentals of Physical Geography, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, Great Britain, 230 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Hund-Rinke K, Wiechering H (2001) Earthworm avoidance test for soil assessments—an alternative for acute and reproduction tests. J Soil Sediments 1(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hund-Rinke K, Lindemann M, Simon M (2005) Experiences with novel approaches in earthworm testing alternatives. J Soils Sediments 5(4):233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Jabusch TW, Tjeerdema RS (2005) Partitioning of penoxsulam, a new sulfonamide herbicide. J Agric Food Chem 53:7179–7183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jänsch S, Amorim MJ, Römbke J (2005) Identification of the ecological requirements of important terrestrial ecotoxicological test species. Environ Rev 13:51–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavelle P, Decaëns T, Aubert M, Barot S, Blouin M, Bureau F, Margerie P, Mora P, Rossi J-P (2006) Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Biol 42:S3–S15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Løkke H, van Gestel CAM (1998) Handbook of soil invertebrate toxicity tests. Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Loureiro S, Soares AMVM, Nogueira AJA (2005) Terrestrial avoidance behaviour tests as screening tool to assess soil contamination. Environ Pollut 138(1):121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matringe M, Sailland A, Pelissier B, Rolland A, Zink O (2005) p-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitor-resistant plants. Pest Manag Sci 61:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meazza G, Scheffler BE, Tellez MR, Rimando AM, Romagni JG, Duke SO, Nanayakkara D, Khan IA, Abourashed EA, Dayan FE (2002) The inhibitory activity of natural products on plant p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Phytochemistry 59:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muthukaruppan G, Janardhanan S, Vijayalakshmi GS (2005) Sublethal toxicity of the Herbicide Butachlor on the earthworm Perionyx sansibaricus and its histological changes. J Soils Sediments 5(2):82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Natal-da-Luz T, Ribeiro R, Sousa JP (2004) Avoidance tests with Collembola and earthworms as early screening tools for site-specific assessment of polluted soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(9):2188–2193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. O’Halloran K (2006) Toxicological considerations of contaminants in the terrestrial environment for ecological risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pereira R, Antunes SC, Marques S, Gonçalves F (2008) Contribution for tier 1 of the ecological risk assessment of Cunha Baixa uranium mine (Central Portugal): I Soil chemical characterization. Sci Total Environ 390:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reinecke SA, Reinecke AJ (2007) The impact of organophosphate pesticides in orchards on earthworms in the Western Cape, South Africa. Ecotox Environ Saf 66:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reinecke AJ, Maboeta MS, Vermeulen LA, Reinecke SA (2002) Assessment of lead nitrate and mancozeb toxicity in earthworms using the avoidance response. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 68:779–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Römbke J (2006) Tools and techniques for the assessment of ecotoxicological impacts of contaminants in the terrestrial environment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:84–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Römbke J, Jänsch S, Didden W (2005) The use of earthworms in ecological soil classification and assessment concepts. Ecotox Environ Saf 62:249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith R, Pollard SJT, Weeks JM, Nathanail CP (2006) Assessing significant harm to terrestrial ecosystems from contaminated land. Soil Use Manage 21:527–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sousa A, Pereira R, Antunes SC, Cachada A, Pereira E, Duarte AC, Gonçalves F (2008) Validation of avoidance assays for the screening assessment of soils under different anthropogenic disturbances. Ecotox Environ Saf 71:661–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SPAC (Soil and Plant Analysis Council) (2000) Handbook of reference methods. CRC, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  43. ter Halle A, Drncova D, Richard C (2006) Phototransformation of the herbicide sulcotrione on maize cuticular wax. Environ Sci Technol 40(9):2989–2995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tominack RL (2000) Herbicide formulations. Clin Toxicol 38(2):129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomlin CDS (2000) The pesticide manual, 12th edn. British Crop Protection Council, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsui MTK, Chu LM (2003) Aquatic toxicity of glyphosate-based formulations: comparison between different organisms and the effects of environmental factors. Chemosphere 52(7):1189–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Vermeulen LA, Reinecke AJ, Reinecke SA (2001) Evaluation of the fungicide manganese-zinc ethylene bis(dithiocarbamate) (Mancozeb) for sublethal and acute toxicity to Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta). Ecotox Environ Saf 48:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Yeardley RB Jr, Lazorchak JM, Gast LC (1996) The potential of an earthworm avoidance test for evaluation of hazardous waste sites. Environ Toxicol Chem 15(9):1532–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ying G-G, Williams B (2000) Laboratory study on the interaction between herbicides and sediments in water systems. Environ Pollut 107:399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA, p 662Google Scholar
  53. Zhou S-P, C-q Duan, Fu H, Chen Y-H, Wang X-H, Yu Z-F (2007) Toxicity assessment for chlorpyrifos-contaminated soil with three different earthworm test methods. Journal of Environmental Sciences 19:854–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catarina Marques
    • 1
  • Ruth Pereira
    • 1
  • Fernando Gonçalves
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), Campus Universitário de SantiagoUniversidade de AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations