Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 232–239 | Cite as

Ecotoxicological assessment of the effects of glyphosate and chlorpyrifos in an Argentine soya field

  • Norma Casabé
  • Lucas Piola
  • Julio Fuchs
  • María Luisa Oneto
  • Laura Pamparato
  • Silvana Basack
  • Rosana Giménez
  • Rubén Massaro
  • Juan C. Papa
  • Eva Kesten
Research Article

Abstract

Background, Aim and Scope

Continuous application of pesticides may pollute soils and affect non-target organisms. Soil is a complex ecosystem; its components can modulate the effects of pesticides. Therefore, it is recommended to evaluate the potential environmental risk of these compounds in local conditions. We performed an integrated field-laboratory study on an Argentine soya field sprayed with glyphosate and chlorpyrifos under controlled conditions. Our aim was to compare the sensitivity of a series of endpoints for the assessment of adverse effects of the extensive use of these agrochemicals.

Materials and Methods

A RR soya field in a traditional farming area of Argentina was sprayed with glyphosate (GLY) or chlorpyrifos (CPF) formulations at the commercially recommended rates, according to a randomized complete block design with 3 replicates. In laboratory assays, Eisenia fetida andrei were exposed to soil samples (0–10 cm depth) collected between the rows of soya. Endpoints linked to behavior and biological activity (reproduction, avoidance behavior and bait-lamina tests) and cellular/subcellular assays (Neutral Red Retention Time — NRRT; DNA damage — Comet assay) were tested. Field assays included litterbag and bait-lamina tests. Physico/chemical analyses were performed on soil samples.

Results

GLY reduced cocoon viability, decreasing the number of juveniles. Moreover, earthworms avoided soils treated with GLY. No effects on either reproduction or on avoidance were observed at the very low CPF concentration measured in the soils sampled 10 days after treatment. Both pesticides caused a reduction in the feeding activity under laboratory and field conditions. NRRT was responsive to formulations of CPF and GLY. Comet assay showed significantly increased DNA damage in earthworms exposed to CPF treated soils. No significant differences in DNA migration were observed with GLY treated soils. Litterbag field assay showed no differences between treated and control plots.

Discussion

The ecotoxicological effects of pesticides can be assessed by monitoring the status of communities in real ecosystems or through the use of laboratory toxicity tests. Litterbag field test showed no influence of the treatments on the organic matter breakdown, suggesting a scarce contribution of soil macrofauna. The bait-lamina test, however, seemed to be useful for detecting the effects of GLY and CPF treatments on the activity of the soil fauna. CPF failed to give significant differences with the controls in the reproduction test and the results were not conclusive in the avoidance test. Although the field population density of earthworms could be affected by multiple factors, the effects observed on the reproduction and avoidance tests caused by GLY could contribute to its decrease, with the subsequent loss of their beneficial functions. Biomarkers measuring effects on suborganism level could be useful to predict adverse effects on soil organisms and populations. Among them, NRRT, a lysosomal destabilization biomarker, resulted in demonstrating more sensitivity than the reproduction and avoidance tests. The Comet assay was responsive only to CPF. Since DNA damage can have severe consequences on populations, it could be regarded as an important indicator to be used in the assessment of soil health.

Conclusions

Reproduction and avoidance tests were sensitive indicators of GLY exposure, with the former being more labor intensive. Bait-lamina test was sensitive to both CPF and GLY. NRRT and Comet assays revealed alterations at a subcellular level, and could be considered complementary to the biological activity tests. Because of their simplicity, some of these bioassays seemed to be appropriate pre-screening tests, prior to more extensive and invasive testing.

Recommendations and Perspectives

This study showed deleterious effects of GLY and CPF formulations when applied at the nominal concentrations recommended for soya crops. Further validation is needed before these endpoints could be used as field monitoring tools in Argentine soya soils (ecotoxicological risk assessment — ERA tools).

Keywords

Agrochemicals avoidance behavior bait-lamina test chlorpyrifos Comet assay Eisenia fetida andrei glyphosate litterbag test neutral red retention time (NRRT) pesticide application reproduction test soya field 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Booth L, Heppelthwaite V, O’Halloran K (2005): Effects-based assays in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa. Their utilization for evaluation of contaminated sites before and after remediation. J Soils Sediments 5(2) 87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth L, O’Halloran K (2001): A comparison of biomarker responses in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa to the organophosphorus insecticides diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Environ. Toxicol Chem 20, 2494–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burch S, Fitzpatrick L, Goven A, Venables B, Giggleman M (1999): In vitro earthworm Lumbricus terrestris coelomocyte assay for use in terrestrial toxicity identification evaluation. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 62, 547–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Förster B, Van Gestel C, Koolhaas J, Nentwig G, Rodrigues J, Sousa J (2004): Ring-testing and field-validation of a terrestrial model ecosystem (TME) — An instrument for testing potentially harmful substances: Effects of carbendazim on organic matter breakdown and soil fauna feeding activity. Ecotoxicology 13, 129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. García M, Forster B, Römbke J, Welp G and Martius C (2004): Effects of pesticides on soil fauna. Development of ecotoxicological test methods for the tropics. ZEF news 15, 4–5Google Scholar
  6. Helling B, Pfeiff G, Larink O (1998): A comparison of feeding activity of collembolan and enchytraeid in laboratory studies using the baitlamina test. Appl Soil Ecol 7, 207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hund-Rinke K, Lindemann M, Simon M (2005): Experiences with novel approaches in earthworm testing alternatives. J Soils Sediments 5, 233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ingelsfield C (1989): Pyrethroids and terrestrial non-target organisms. Pest Sci 27, 387–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. INTA (1985): Carta de suelos de la República Argentina. Hoja 3360-8-3, 66–68, INTA, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  10. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (1998): Soil quality — Effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) — Part 2: Method for the determination of effects on reproduction. ISO 11268-2, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2004): Soil quality — Avoidance test for testing the quality of soils and the toxicity of chemicals — Test with earthworms (Eisenia fetida). ISO N 281 draft protocol, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Jager T, Crommentuijn T, Van Gestel C, Kooijman S (2007): Chronic exposure to chlorpyrifos reveals two modes of action in the springtail Folsomia candida. Environ Pollut 145(2) 452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jänsch S, Frampton G, Römbke J, Van den Brink P, Scott-Fordsmand J (2006): Effects of pesticides on soil invertebrates in model ecosystem and field studies: A review and comparison with laboratory toxicity data. Environ Toxicol Chem 25, 2490–2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jergentz S, Mugni H, Bonetto C, Schulz R (2005): Assessment of insecticide contamination in runoff and stream water of small agricultural streams in the main soybean area of Argentina. Chemosphere 61, 817–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knacker T, Förster B, Römbke J, Frampton G (2003): Assessing the effects of plant protection products on organic matter breakdown in arable fields-litter decomposition test systems. Soil Biol Biochem 35, 1269–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kobayashi H, Ohtomi M, Sekizawa Y, Ohta N (2001): Toxicity of coelomic fluid of the earthworm Eisenia foetida to vertebrates but not invertebrates: Probable role of sphingomyelin. Comp Biochem Physiol C 128, 401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kördel W, Römbke J (2001): Requirements on physical, chemical and biological testing methods for estimating the quality of soils and soil substrates. Extended summary of the GDCh monograph. J Soils Sediments 20, 98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kosmehl T, Krebs T, Manz W, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2004): Comparative genotoxicity testing of Rhine river sediment extracts using the Comet assay with permanent fish cell lines (RTG-2 and RTL-W1) and the Ames test. J Soils Sediments 5, 84–94Google Scholar
  19. Loureiro S, Soares A, Nogueira A (2005): Terrestrial avoidance behaviour tests as screening tool to assess soil contamination. Environ Pollut 138, 121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lukkari T, Haimi J (2005): Avoidance of Cu- and Zn-contaminated soil by three ecologically different earthworm species. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 62, 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maboeta M, Reinecke S, Reinecke A (2002): The relation between lysosomal biomarker and population responses in a field population of Microchaetus sp (Oligochaeta) exposed to the fungicide copper oxychloride. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 52, 280–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marc J, Le Breton M, Cormier P, Morales J, Bellé R, Mulner-Lorillon O (2005): A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicol Appl Pharm 203, 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Micucci F, Taboada M (2006): Soil physical properties and soybean (Glycine max, Merill) root abundance in conventionally- and zero-tilled soils in the humid Pampas of Argentina. Soil Till Res 86, 152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muthukaruppan G, Janardhanan S, Vijayalakshmi G (2004): Sublethal toxicity of the herbicide butachlor on the earthworm Perionyx sansibaricus and its histological changes. J Soils Sediments 5, 82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Natal Da Luz T, Ribeiro R, Sousa J (2004): Avoidance tests with collembola and earthworms as early screening tools for site-specific assessment of polluted soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 23, 2188–2193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1984): Guideline for testing of chemicals, No. 207, Earthworms acute toxicity test. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahman M, Mahboob M, Danadevi K, Saleha Banu B, Grover P (2002): Assessment of genotoxic effects of chloropyriphos and acephate by the Comet assay in mice leucocytes. Mutat Res 516, 139–147Google Scholar
  28. Reinecke A, Maboeta M, Vermeulen L, Reinecke S (2002): Assessment of lead nitrate and mancozeb toxicity in earthworms using the avoidance response. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 68, 779–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reinecke S, Reinecke A (2004): The comet assay as biomarker of heavy metal genotoxicity in earthworms. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46, 208–215Google Scholar
  30. Reinecke S, Reinecke A (2007): Biomarker response and biomass change of earthworms exposed to chlorpyrifos in microcosms. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 66(1) 92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Römbke J, Förster B, Jänsch S, Scheffczyk A, Garcia M (2005): Terrestrische ökotoxikologische Testmethoden für die Tropen — Teil 2: Halbfreiland- und Freilandtests sowie Risikobeurteilung. UWSF 17, 85–93Google Scholar
  32. Sandahl J, Baldwin D, Jenkins J, Scholz N (2005): Comparative thresholds for acetylcholinesterase inhibition and behavioral impairment in Coho salmon exposed to chlorpyrifos. Environ Toxicol Chem 24, 136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott-Fordsmand J, Weeks J (2000): Biomarkers in earthworms. Reviews of Environ Contam Toxicol 165, 117–159Google Scholar
  34. Singh N, McCoy M, Tice R, Schneider E (1988): A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res 175, 123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taboada M, Micucci F, Cosentino D, Lavado R (1998): Comparison of compaction induced by conventional and zero tillage in two soils of the Rolling Pampa of Argentina. Soil Till Res 49, 57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Gestel C, Van der Waarde J, Dersken J (2001): The use of acute and chronic bioassays to determine the ecological risk and bioremediation efficiency of oil polluted soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 20, 1438–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Gestel C, Weeks J (2004): Recommendations of the 3rd International Workshop on Earthworm Ecotoxicology, Aarhus, Denmark, August 2001. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57, 100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vasseur P, Cossu-Leguille C (2003): Biomarkers and community indices as complementary tools for environmental safety. Environ Int 8, 711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Von Törne E (1990): Assessing feeding activities of soil-living animals: Bait-lamina tests. Pedobiologia 34, 89–101Google Scholar
  40. Weeks J, Svendsen C (1996): Neutral red retention by lysosomes from earthworm (Lumbricus rubellus) coelomocytes: A simple biomarker of exposure to soil copper. Environ Toxicol Chem 15(10), 1801–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xiao N, Song Y, Ge F, Liu X, Ou-Yang Z (2006): Biomarkers responses of the earthworm Eisenia fetida to acetochlor exposure in OECD soil Chemosphere 65, 907–912Google Scholar
  42. Zang Y, Zhong Y, Luo Y, Kong Z (2000): Genotoxicity of two novel pesticides for the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Environ Pollut 108, 271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ecomed publishers 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norma Casabé
    • 1
    • 4
  • Lucas Piola
    • 1
  • Julio Fuchs
    • 1
    • 4
  • María Luisa Oneto
    • 1
  • Laura Pamparato
    • 1
  • Silvana Basack
    • 1
  • Rosana Giménez
    • 2
  • Rubén Massaro
    • 3
  • Juan C. Papa
    • 3
  • Eva Kesten
    • 1
  1. 1.Toxicology and Legal Chemistry-FCENUBACiudad de Buenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Agricultural ZoologyFAUBACiudad de Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.EEA Oliveros-INTAOliveros, Santa FeArgentina
  4. 4.CONICETCiudad de Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations