Ecological Effects of Spring and Late Summer Applications of Lambda-Cyhalothrin on Freshwater Microcosms

  • R. P. A. Van Wijngaarden
  • T. C. M. Brock
  • P. J. van den Brink
  • R. Gylstra
  • S. J. Maund


The aim of the study was to compare the effects of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin (treated at 10, 25, 50, 100, 250 ng active ingredient a.i./L) on a drainage ditch ecosystem in spring and late summer. Microcosms (water volume approximately 430 L) were established using enclosures in a 50-cm–deep experimental ditch system containing communities typical of macrophyte-dominated freshwater ecosystems. Effects on macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, macrophytes, and community metabolism were assessed and evaluated using univariate and multivariate statistical techniques. The macroinvertebrate community responded most clearly to treatment and, as anticipated, insects and crustaceans were among the most sensitive organisms. Statistical analysis showed that the underlying community structure was significantly different between the spring and summer experiments. However, the most sensitive species (Chaoborus obscuripes and Gammarus pulex) were abundant in spring as well as in late summer. In spring and late summer, only slight and transient effects were observed at the community level in the 10-ng/L treatment. Overall, the study did not show substantial differences in the responses of sensitive taxa between spring and late summer treatments, and effects thresholds were similar irrespective of season of treatment.


Macrophyte Treatment Level Late Summer Macroinvertebrate Community Monte Carlo Permutation Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors are indebted to Gertie Arts, Martin van den Hoorn, Caroline van Rhenen, Dick Belgers, Tjeerd-Herm van den Hoek, Jos Sinkeldam, Stefanie Janssen, Wendy Beekman, Fred Bransen, Alex Schroer, and Christy Udoh. The work was funded by LNV Research Programme 359 and Syngenta Crop Protection AG.


  1. Campbell PJ, Arnold DJS, Brock TCM, Grandy NJ, Heger W, Heimbach F, et al. (1999) Guidance document on higher tier aquatic risk assessment for pesticides (HARAP). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Europe, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  2. Brock TCM, Crum SJH, van Wijngaarden RPA, Budde BJ, Tijink J, Zupelli A, et al. (1992) Fate and effects of the insecticide Dursban® 4E in indoor Elodea-dominated and macrophyte-free freshwater model ecosystems: I. Fate and primary effects of the active ingredient chlorpyrifos. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 23:69–84Google Scholar
  3. Bérard A, Pelte T, Druart J-C (1999) Seasonal variations in the sensitivity of Lake Geneva phytoplankton community structure to atrazine. Arch Hydrobiol 145:277–295Google Scholar
  4. Farmer D, Hill IR, Maund SJ (1995) A comparison of the fate and effects of two pyrethroid insecticides (lambda-cyhalothrin and cypermethrin) in pond mesocosms. Ecotoxicology 4:219–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giddings JM (1982) Effects of the water-soluble fraction of a coal-derived oil on pond microcosms. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 11:735–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giddings JM, Brock TCM, Heger W, Heimbach F, Maund SJ, Norman SM, et al. (eds) (2002) Community-level aquatic systems studies—Interpretation criteria. Proceedings from the CLASSIC Workshop (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry publication), Schmallenberg, Germany, May 30 to June 2, 1999 Google Scholar
  7. Hanazato T, Yasuno M (1990) Influence of time of application of an insecticide on recovery patterns of a zooplankton community in experimental ponds. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 19:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hand LH, Kuet SF, Lane MCG, Maund SJ, Warinton JS, Hill IR (2001) Influences of aquatic plants on the fate of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin in aquatic environments. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:1740–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hill IR (1989) Aquatic organisms and pyrethroids. Pestic Sci 27:429–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill IR, Runnalls JK, Kennedy JH, Ekoniak P (1994) Lambda-cyhalothrin: A mesocosm study of its effects on aquatic organisms. In: Graney RL, Kennedy JH, Rogers JH (eds) Aquatic mesocosm studies in ecological risk assessment (special publication of the Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry). Lewis, Michigan, pp 403–467Google Scholar
  11. Hommen U, Veith D, Ratte H-T (1994) A computer program to evaluate plankton data from freshwater field tests. In: Hill IA, Heimbach F, Leeuwangh P, Matthiesen P (eds) Freshwater field tests for hazard assessment of chemicals. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 503–513Google Scholar
  12. Hutchinson TH, Solbé J, Kloepper-Sams PJ (1998) Analysis of the ECETOC aquatic toxicity (EAT) database. III–Comparative toxicity of chemical substances to different life stages of aquatic organisms. Chemosphere 36:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kindig AC, Conquest LL, Taub FB (1983) Differential sensitivity of new versus mature synthetic microcosms to streptomycin sulfate treatment. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Sixth symposium, American Society for Testing and Materials STP 802. In: Bishop WE, Cardwell RD, Heidolph (eds). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 192–203Google Scholar
  14. Leistra M, Zweers AJ, Warington JS, Crum SJ, Hand LH, Beltman WHJ, et al. (2003) Fate of the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin in ditch enclosures differing in vegetation density. Pest Manage Sci 60:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayer FL, Ellersieck MR (1986) Manual of acute toxicity: Interpretation and database for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 160. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Maund SJ, Hamer MJ, Warinton JS, Kedwards TJ (1998) Aquatic ecotoxicology of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin: Considerations for higher-tier aquatic risk assessment. Pestic Sci 54:408–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moed JR, Hallegraeff GM (1978) Some problems in the estimation of chlorophyll- a and phaeopigments from pre- and post-acidification spectrophotometric measurements. Int Rev Gesamten Hydrobiol 63:787–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roessink I, Arts GHP, Belgers JDM, Bransen F, Maund SJ, Brock TCM (2005). Effects of lambda-cyhalothrin in two ditch microcosm systems of different trophic status. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:1684–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. SANCO (2002) Guidance document on aquatic ecotoxicology in the context of the directive 91/414/EEC, working document SANCO/3268/2001 revision 4 (final), 2002. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate–GeneralGoogle Scholar
  20. Scheffer M (1998) Ecology of shallow lakes. Chapman and Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Schroer AFW, Belgers D, Brock TCM, Matser A, Maund SJ, van den Brink PJ (2004) Comparison of laboratory single species and field population-level effects of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin on freshwater invertebrates. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46:324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stark JD (1999) Population structure and differential susceptibility among life stages: Implications for population effects of toxicants. Asp Appl Biol 53:235–240Google Scholar
  23. Swartzman GL, Taub FB, Meador J, Huang C, Kindig A (1990) Modeling the effect of algal biomass on multispecies aquatic microcosms response to copper toxicity. Aquat Toxicol 17:93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Swift MC, Fedorenko AY (1975) Some aspects of prey capture by Chaoborus larvae. Limnol Oceanogr 20:418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taub FB, Kindig AC, Meador JP, Swartzman GL (1991) Effects of “seasonal succession” and grazing on copper toxicity in aquatic microcosms. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 24:2205–2214Google Scholar
  26. Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (1998) CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to CANOCO for Windows: Software for canocical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  27. Van den Brink PJ, Hattink J, Bransen F, Van Donk E, Brock TCM (2000) Impact of the fungicide carbendazim in freshwater microcosms. II. Zooplankton, primary producers and final conclusions. Aquat Toxicol 48:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van den Brink PJ, Ter Braak CJF (1998) Multivariate analysis of stress in experimental ecosystems by principal response curves and similarity analysis. Aquat Ecol 32:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van den Brink PJ Ter Braak CJF (1999) Principal response curves: Analysis of time-dependent multivariate responses of a biological community to stress. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van den Brink PJ, van Wijngaarden RPA, Lucassen WGH, Brock TCM, Leeuwangh P (1996) Effects of the insecticide Durban® 4E (a.i. chlorpyrifos) in outdoor experimental ditches: II. Community responses and recovery. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1143–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Wijngaarden RPA, Cuppen JGM, Arts GHP, Crum SJH, Van den Hoorn MW, Van den Brink PJ, Brock TCM (2004) Aquatic risk assessment of a realistic exposure to pesticides used in bulb crops: A microcosm study. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1479–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Wijngaarden RPA, Brock TCM, Douglas M 2005. Effects of chlorpyrifos in freshwater model ecosystems: The influence of experimental conditions on ecotoxicological thresholds. Pest Manage Sci 64:923–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams DA (1972) The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics 28:519–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Willis KJ, Van den Brink PJ, Green JD (2004). Seasonal variation in plankton community responses of mesocosms dosed with pentachlorophenol. Ecotoxicology 13:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. P. A. Van Wijngaarden
    • 1
  • T. C. M. Brock
    • 1
  • P. J. van den Brink
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Gylstra
    • 2
  • S. J. Maund
    • 3
  1. 1.AlterraWageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality ManagementWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Syngenta Crop Protection AGSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations