Ecotoxicology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 667–680 | Cite as

Evaluation of suitable endpoints for assessing the impacts of toxicants at the community level

Article

Abstract

Assessment of ecological impacts of toxicants relies currently on extrapolation of effects observed at organismal or population levels. The uncertainty inherent to such extrapolations, together with the impossibility of predicting ecological effects of chemical mixtures, can only be resolved by adopting approaches that consider toxicological endpoints at a community or ecological level. Experimental data from micro- and mesocosms provide estimates of community effect levels, which can then be used to confirm or correct the extrapolations from theoretical methods such as species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) or others. When assessing impacts, the choice of sensitive community endpoints is important. Four community endpoints (species richness, abundance, diversity and similarity indices) were evaluated in their ability to assess impacts of two insecticides, imidacloprid and etofenprox, and their mixture on aquatic and benthic communities from artificial rice paddies. Proportional changes of each community endpoint were expressed by ratios between their values in the treatment and control paddies. Regression lines fitted to the endpoint ratios against the time series of chemical concentrations were used to predict percentile impacts in the communities. The abundance endpoint appears to be the most sensitive indicator of the communities’ response, but the Czekanowski similarity index described best the structural changes that occur in all communities. Aquatic arthropods were more sensitive to the mixture of both insecticides than zooplankton and benthic communities. Estimated protective levels for 95% of aquatic species exposed to imidacloprid (<0.01–1.0 μg l−1) were slightly lower than predicted by SSD, whereas for etofenprox the protective concentrations in water (<0.01–0.58 μg l−1) were an order of magnitude lower than SSD’s predictions.

Keywords

Insecticides Effects Diversity indices Similarity Invertebrate communities 

References

  1. Ahmad M, Arif MI, Ahmad Z (1999) Detection of resistance to pyrethroids in field populations of cotton jassid (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) from Pakistan. J Econ Entomol 92(6):1246–1250Google Scholar
  2. Aldenberg T, Jaworska JS (2000) Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 46(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander AC, Culp JM, Liber K, Cessna AJ (2007) Effects of insecticide exposure on feeding inhibition in mayflies and oligochaetes. Environ Toxicol Chem 26(8):1726–1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen TH, Tjørnhøj R, Wollenberger L, Slothuus T, Baun A (2006) Acute and chronic effects of pulse exposure of Daphnia magna to dimethoate and pirimicarb. Environ Toxicol Chem 25(5):1187–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbee GC, Stout MJ (2009) Comparative acute toxicity of neonicotinoid and pyrethroid insecticides to non-target crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) associated with rice–crayfish crop rotations. Pest Manag Sci 65(11):1250–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry MJ, Logan DC (1998) The use of temporary pond microcosms for aquatic toxicity testing: direct and indirect effects of endosulfan on community structure. Aquat Toxicol 41(1–2):101–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartell SM, Pastorok RA, Akçakaya HR, Regan H, Ferson S, Mackay C (2003) Realism and relevance of ecological models used in chemical risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 9(4):907–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonmatin JM, Marchand PA, Charvet R, Moineau I, Bengsch ER, Colin ME (2005) Quantification of imidacloprid uptake in maize crops. J Agric Food Chem 53(13):5336–5341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caquet T, Lagadic L, Jonot O, Baturo W, Kilanda M, Simon P, Le Bras S, Echaubard M, Ramade F (1996) Outdoor experimental ponds (mesocosms) designed for long-term ecotoxicological studies in aquatic environment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 34(2):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czekanowski J (1913) Zarys Metod Statystycznyck. Warsaw, PolandGoogle Scholar
  12. Dam RA, Camilleri C, Bayliss P, Markich SJ (2004) Ecological risk assessment of tebuthiuron following application on tropical Australian wetlands. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10(6):1069–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forbes VE, Calow P, Sibly RM (2008) The extrapolation problem and how population modelling can help. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(11):1987–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forbes VE, Calow P, Grimm V, Hayashi T, Jager T, Palmqvist A, Pastorok R, Salvito D, Sibly R (2010) Integrating population modeling into ecological risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manage 6:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giddings JM, Solomon KR, Maund SJ (2001) Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: II. Aquatic mesocosms and field studies. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(3):660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanna R, Wilson LT, Zalom FG, Flaherty DL (1997) Effects of predation and competition on the population dynamics of Tetranychus pacificus on grapevines. J Appl Ecol 34(4):878–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hose GC, van den Brink PJ (2004) Confirming the species-sensitivity distribution concept for endosulfan using laboratory, mesocosm, and field data. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 47(4):511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoshino T, Takase I (1993) New insecticide imidacloprid-Safety assessment. Noyaku Kenkyu 39(3):37–45Google Scholar
  19. Iwasa T, Motoyama N, Ambrose JT, Roe RM (2004) Mechanism for the differential toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Crop Prot 23(5):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kefford BJ, Schäfer RB, Liess M, Goonan P, Metzeling L, Nugegoda D (2010) A similarity-index–based method to estimate chemical concentration limits protective for ecological communities. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(9):2123–2131Google Scholar
  21. Kwok KWH, BjorgesÆter A, Leung KMY, Lui GCS, Gray JS, Shin PKS, Lam PKS (2008) Deriving site-specific sediment quality guidelines for Hong Kong marine environments using field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(1):226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liess M (2002) Population response to toxicants is altered by intraspecific interaction. Environ Toxicol Chem 21(1):138–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liess M, Foit K (2010) Intraspecific competition delays recovery of population structure. Aquat Toxicol 97(1):15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liess M, Pieters BJ, Duquesne S (2006) Long-term signal of population disturbance after pulse exposure to an insecticide: rapid recovery of abundance, persistent alteration of structure. Environ Toxicol Chem 25(5):1326–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maltby L, Blake N, Brock TCM, van den Brink PJ (2005) Insecticide species sensitivity distributions: importance of test species selection and relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(2):379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meent DVD, Hollander A, Peijnenburg W, Breure T (2011) Fate and transport of contaminants. In: Sánchez-Bayo F, Van den Brink PJ, Mann R (eds) Ecological impacts of toxic chemicals. Bentham Science Publishers, Bentham, pp 13–42Google Scholar
  27. Pastorok RA (2003) Introduction: Improving chemical risk assessments through ecological modelling. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 9(4):885–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sánchez-Bayo F, Goka K (2006) Ecological effects of the insecticide imidacloprid and a pollutant from antidandruff shampoo in experimental rice fields. Environ Toxicol Chem 25(6):1677–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sánchez-Bayo F, Ahmad R, Goka K (2007a) Evaluation of the standard quotient and EcoRR methodologies based on field monitoring from rice fields. In: Kennedy IR, Solomon KR, Gee SJ, Crossan AN, Wang S, Sánchez-Bayo F (eds) Rational environmental management of agrochemicals. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 66–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sánchez-Bayo F, Yamashita H, Osaka R, Yoneda M, Goka K (2007b) Ecological effects of imidacloprid on arthropod communities in and around a vegetable crop. J Environ Sci Health B 42(3):279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schäfer RB, Caquet T, Siimes K, Mueller R, Lagadic L, Liess M (2007) Effects of pesticides on community structure and ecosystem functions in agricultural streams of three biogeographical regions in Europe. Sci Total Environ 382(2–3):272–285Google Scholar
  32. Schäfer RB, van den Brink PJ, Liess M (2011) Impacts of pesticides on freshwater ecosystems. In: Sánchez-Bayo F, van den Brink PJ, Mann R (eds) Ecological impacts of toxic chemicals. Bentham Science Publishers, Bentham, pp 111–137Google Scholar
  33. Schroer AFW, Belgers JDM, Brock CM, Matser AM, 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(3):324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Selck H, Riemann B, Christoffersen K, Forbes VE, Gustavson K, Hansen BW, Jacobsen JA, Kusk OK, Petersen S (2002) Comparing sensitivity of ecotoxicological effect endpoints between laboratory and field. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 52(2):97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solomon K, Giesy J, Jones P (2000) Probabilistic risk assessment of agrochemicals in the environment. Crop Prot 19(8–10):649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Takahashi Y, Houjyo T, Kohjimoto T, Takagi Y, Mori K, Muraoka T, Annoh H, Ogiyama K, Funaki Y, Tanaka K et al (2007) Impact of pretilachlor herbicide and pyridaphenthion insecticide on aquatic organisms in model streams. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 67(2):227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tharp C, Blodgett SL, Johnson GD (2000) Efficacy of imidacloprid for control of cereal leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in barley. J Econ Entomol 93(1):38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tomlin CDS (2009) In: Tomlin CDS (ed) The e-pesticide manual, 12th edn. British Crop Protection Council, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  39. van den Brink PJ (2008) Ecological risk assessment: from book-keeping to chemical stress ecology. Environ Sci Technol 42(24):8999–9004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van den Brink PJ, Ter Braak CJF (1999) Principal response curves: analysis of time-dependent multivariate responses of biological community to stress. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(2):138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van den Brink PJ, Blake N, Brock TCM, Maltby L (2006) Predictive value of species sensitivity distributions for effects of herbicides in freshwater ecosystems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12(4):645–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van den Brink PJ, Baveco JMH, Verboom J, Heimbach F (2007) An individual-based approach to model spatial population dynamics of invertebrates in aquatic ecosystems after pesticide contamination. Environ Toxicol Chem 26(10):222–223Google Scholar
  43. Vasuki V, Rajavel AR, Amalraj DD, Das PK (1995) Insecticidal activity of some new synthetic compounds against different mosquito species. J Commun Dis 27(3):146–150Google Scholar
  44. Verdonck FAM, Aldenberg T, Jaworska J, Vanrolleghem PA (2003) Limitations of current risk characterization methods in probabilistic environmental risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 22(9):2209–2213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wijngaarden RPAV, Brock TCM, van den Brink PJ (2005) Threshold levels for effects of insecticides in freshwater ecosystems: a review. Ecotoxicology 14(3):355–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Willis KJ, van den Brink PJ, Green JD (2004) Seasonal variation in plankton community responses of mesocosms dosed with pentachlorophenol. Ecotoxicology 13(7):707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woin P (1998) Short- and long-term effects of the pyrethroid insecticide fenvalerate on an invertebrate pond community. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 41(2):137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yameogo L, Traore K, Back C, Hougard JM, Calamari D (2001) Risk assessment of etofenprox (vectron®) on non-target aquatic fauna compared with other pesticides used as Simulium larvicide in a tropical environment. Chemosphere 42(8):965–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for EcotoxicologyUniversity of Technology SydneyLidcombeAustralia
  2. 2.National Institute of Environmental Studies (NIES)Tsukuba, IbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations