Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 12, Issue 7, pp 1066–1078 | Cite as

Almond organophosphate and pyrethroid use in the San Joaquin Valley and their associated environmental risk

  • Xingmei Liu
  • Yu Zhan
  • Yuzhou Luo
  • Minghua ZhangEmail author
  • Shu Geng
  • Jianming XuEmail author



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.


Almonds 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).


  1. Amweg EL, Weston DP, Ureda NM (2005) Use and toxicity of pyrethroid pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:966–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bockstaller C, Guichard L, Makowski D, Aveline A, Girardin P, Plantureux S (2008) Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 28:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady JA, Wallender WW, Werner I (2006) Pesticide runoff from orchard floors in Davis, California, USA: a comparative analysis of diazinon and esfenvalerate. Agr Ecosyst Environ 115:56–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) (2000) Pesticide use reporting: an overview of California’s unique full reporting system, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) (2001) Summary of Pesticide use Report Data of 2000, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) (2002) Grants web page, Sacramento, CA.
  8. California Natural Diversity Database (2008) The Habitate Conservation Division of the California Department of Fish and Game.
  9. 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
  10. Domagalski J (1996) Pesticides and pesticide degradation products in storm water runoff: Sacramento River Basin, California. Water Resour Bull 32:953–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Domagalski J (1997) Results of a prototype surface water network design for pesticides developed for the San Joaquin River Basin, California. J Hydrol 192:33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein L, Bassein S, Zalom FG (2000) Almond and stone fruit growers reduce OP, increase pyrethroid use in dormant sprays. Calif Agr 54:14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epstein L, Bassein S, Zalom FG (2001) Changes in pest management practice in almond orchards during the rainy season in California, USA. Agr Ecosyst Environ 83:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flint ML, Dreistadt SH, Zagory EM (1993) IPM reduces pesticide use in the nursery. Calif Agr 47:4–7Google Scholar
  15. Gan J, Lee SJ, Liu WP, Haver DL, Kabashima JN (2005) Distribution and persistence of pyrethroids in runoff sediments. J Environ Qual 34:836–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grieshop JI, Raj AK (1992) Are California’s farmers headed toward sustainable agriculture? Calif Agr 46:4–7Google Scholar
  17. Hendricks LC (1995) Almond growers reduce pesticide use in Merced County field trials. Calif Agr 49:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerr JT, Cihlar J (2004) Patterns and causes of species endangerment in Canada. Ecol Appl 14:743–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kerr JT, Currie DJ (1995) Effects of human activity on global extinction risk. Conserv Biol 9:1528–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Moore MT, Schulz R, Cooper CM (2002) Mitigation of chlorpyrifos runoff using constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 46:827–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Padovani LT, Capri E (2004) A calculation procedure to assess potential environmental risk of pesticides at the farm level. Ecol Indicat 4:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. Roxanne B (2001) The California Natural Diversity Database: a natural heritage program from rare species and vegetation. Fremontia 29:57–62Google Scholar
  26. Ruano F, Campos M, Soler JJ (2003) Differences in leaves of olive trees under organic integrated and conventional pest management. Agr Ecosyst Environ 97:353–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SCS (1972) SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Soil Conservation Service. USDA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Spurlock F (2002) Methodology for determining voc emission potentials of pesticide products, memorandum to J. Sanders
  29. Swezey SL, Broome J (2001) Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming. Calif Agr 54:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Trevisan M, Guardo A, Balderacchi M (2009) An environmental indicator to drive sustainable pest management practices. Environ Model Software 24:994–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Weston DP, You J, Lydy MJ (2004) Distribution and toxicity of sediment-associated pesticides in agriculture-dominated water bodies of California’s Central Valley. Environ Sci Technol 38:2752–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Wong CS (2006) Environmental fate processes and biochemical transformations of chiral emerging organic pollutants. Anal Bioanal Chem 386:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zalom FG, Flint ML (1990) Integrated pest management in California and the Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project. Calif Agr 44:4–6Google Scholar
  38. Zhang M, Wilhoit L, Geiger C (2005) Assessing dormant season organophosphate use in California almonds. Agr Ecosyst Environ 105:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Soil and Water Resources and Environmental Science, Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Subtropical Soil and Plant NutritionZhejiang UniversityHangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Land, Air and Water ResourcesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations