Almond organophosphate and pyrethroid use in the San Joaquin Valley and their associated environmental risk
- 213 Downloads
The purpose of the present study are to analyze the temporal and spatial trends of the pesticide use on almond crops and assess their associated risk to soil, surface water, and air, and to investigate the impacts of pesticide risk on biodiversity.
Materials and methods
California Pesticide Use Report database was used to determine the organophosphate (OP) and pyrethroid use trends in the San Joaquin Valley for almonds from 1992 to 2005. Environmental potential risk indicator for pesticides model was employed to evaluate associated environmental relative risks in soil and in surface water. Emission potential of pesticide product was used to estimate the air relative risk. Geographical Information System was used to delineate the spatial distribution patterns of environmental risk evaluation in almonds and biodiversity.
Results and discussion
OP pesticide use has been declined in any measurement in almonds. However, a converse result was found for pyrethroid pesticide. Pesticide use trends reflect the profound changes in pest management strategies in the California almond farm community. The model results in this study showed evidence that pyrethroid posed less environmental risks to soil, air, and water resources than OP. The physiochemical properties of pyrethroid reflect a strong tendency to adsorb to organic carbons, and therefore, potentially move off-site attached to sediment. Once in sediments, they can be bioavailable to the aquatic food web. So, more future study on environmental model should address pyrethroid environmental risk on sediment. Ecologists revealed that endangered species diversity has good correlation with total species diversity, so we developed a biodiversity index by using the survey data of endangered and rare animals in California. The results showed a negative relationship between count of animal occurrence and predicted environmental risk. This result would be useful to help conserve California’s biological diversity by providing information to promote agricultural management and land-use decisions.
Pesticide use trend is directly related to environmental risk. Pyrethroid posed less environmental risk than OP in this study. And also, this study got a noticeable result that pesticide uses in intensive agriculture and their associated environmental risks pose negative impacts on biodiversity.
KeywordsAlmonds Animal occurrence Environmental risk OP Pyrethroid Use trend
This research was supported by the California State Water Resource Control Board (06–001004), Zhejiang Province Science and Technology Key Project (2008 C03009), National Science and Technology Support Program (2012BAD15B04), the Project of Zhejiang Key Scientific and Technological Innovation Team (2010R50039), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (40901254).
- Bentley W, Sliver C, Ridgely M (1996) Specialized monitoring of almond BIOS orchards in Merced and Stanislaus Counties, 96-BIOS Project Report to the Almond Board of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) (2000) Pesticide use reporting: an overview of California’s unique full reporting system, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
- California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) (2001) Summary of Pesticide use Report Data of 2000, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
- California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) (2002) Grants web page, Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/dprgrants.htm
- California Natural Diversity Database (2008) The Habitate Conservation Division of the California Department of Fish and Game. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/
- Cleveland WS, Grosse E, Shyu WM (1992) Local regression models. In: Chambers JM, Hastie TJ (eds) Statistical Models in S, Chapter 8. Wadsworth & Brooks/ColeGoogle Scholar
- Flint ML, Dreistadt SH, Zagory EM (1993) IPM reduces pesticide use in the nursery. Calif Agr 47:4–7Google Scholar
- Grieshop JI, Raj AK (1992) Are California’s farmers headed toward sustainable agriculture? Calif Agr 46:4–7Google Scholar
- Laskowski DA (2002) Physical and chemical properties of pyrethroids. In: Ware GW (ed) Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, 174. Springer, New York, USA, pp 49–170Google Scholar
- Page RW (1986) Geology of the fresh groundwater basin of the Central Valley, California, with texture maps and sections, regional aquifer-system analysis, US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401-C: 54Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/
- Roxanne B (2001) The California Natural Diversity Database: a natural heritage program from rare species and vegetation. Fremontia 29:57–62Google Scholar
- SCS (1972) SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Soil Conservation Service. USDA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Spurlock F (2002) Methodology for determining voc emission potentials of pesticide products, memorandum to J. Sanders http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/vocproj/intro.pdf
- Thrupp LA (2001) Principles for implementing sustainable agriculture: lessons from successful partnerships in integrated pest/crop management initiatives. Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in Transition. ASA Special Publication No. 64155–165Google Scholar
- USGS (1999) The quality of our nations’ waters–nutrients and pesticides. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
- Werner I, Deanovic LA, Connor V, Vlaming V, Bailey HC, Hinton DE (2003) Insecticide-caused toxicity to Ceriodaphnia Dubia (Cladocera) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 19(1):215–227Google Scholar
- Wilhoit L, Zhang M, Ross L (2001) Data Quality of California’s Pesticide use Report, PM01-02. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
- Zalom FG, Flint ML (1990) Integrated pest management in California and the Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project. Calif Agr 44:4–6Google Scholar