Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T05:31:27.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Ecotoxicology: The ecology of interactions between pesticides and non-target organisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

By
P. C. Jepson
Edited by
Marcos Kogan  and
Paul Jepson
Marcos Kogan
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
Paul Jepson
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Ecotoxicology is a hybrid discipline that derives its principles and approaches from toxicology, chemistry and ecology. It has spawned numerous text books and manuals (e.g. Levin et al., 1988; Calow, 1994a; b; Moriarty, 1999; Walker et al., 1995) that attempt to draw together these constituent disciplines into a coherent enough whole to enable this applied science to evolve. The principles of ecotoxicology provide the underlying rationale for understanding, regulating and managing the impacts that toxic chemicals have on the environment. It is through its role in providing the technical and scientific foundation for regulatory toxicology that ecotoxicology has its greatest impact on IPM; and this impact is immense. All pesticides that are in use in the western world at least, are subjected to regulatory procedures that approve, restrict or deny use of these chemicals based upon the environmental, as well as the human health risks that they pose.

Ecological risk assessment (Suter, 1993) has developed as an elaborate set of procedures that address the environmental component of the risks posed by xenobiotic chemicals. These procedures are designed to systematically evaluate the probability that adverse effects may occur as a result of exposure to stressors, in this case pesticides. The objective of ecological risk assessment is to inform management decisions, which may include the decision to approve the use of a particular pesticide.

Type
Chapter
Information
Perspectives in Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management , pp. 522 - 552
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aebischer, N. J. (1991). Twenty years of monitoring invertebrates and weeds in cereals in Sussex. In Firbank, L., Carter, N. and Potts, G. R. (eds.), Ecology of Temperate Cereal Fields. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publishers. pp. 305–31.Google Scholar
Barrett, K. L., Grandy, N., Harrison, E. G., Hassan, S. and Oomen, P. (1994). Guidance document on regulatory testing procedures for pesticides with non-target arthropods. From the workshop on European Standard Characteristics of beneficials Regulatory Testing (ESCORT). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Europe, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Burn, A. J. (1992). Interactions between cereal pests and their predators and parasites. In Greig-Smith, P., Frampton, G. H. and Hardy, A. (eds.), Pesticides and the Environment: The Boxworth Study. London, UK: HMSO. pp. 110–31.Google Scholar
Calow, P. (1994 a; b). Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Volumes I and II. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Campbell, P. J., Arnold, D. J. S., Brock, T. C. M.et al. (1999). Guidance Document on Higher-Tier Aquatic Risk Assessment for Pesticides (HARAP). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Europe, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Campbell, P. J., Brown, K. C., Harrison, E. G.et al. (2000). A hazard quotient approach for assessing the risk to non-target arthropods from plant protection products under 91/414/EEC: hazard quotient trigger value proposal and validation. Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde (Journal of Pest Science), 73, 117–24.Google Scholar
Candolfi, M. P., Barrett, K. L., Campbell, P. J.et al. (2001). Guidance document on regulatory testing and risk assessment procedures for plant protection products with non-target arthropods. From the ESCORT 2 workshop European standard characteristics of non-target arthropod regulatory testing. SETAC-Europe (ISBN 1 880611 52 X).Google Scholar
Chamberlain, D. E., Fuler, R. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Duckworth, J. C. and Shrubb, M. (2000). Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 771–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cilgi, T. and Jepson, P. C. (1992). The direct exposure of beneficial invertebrates to pesticide sprays in cereal crops. Annals of Applied Biology, 121, 239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, B. A. (1990). Arthropod Biological Control Agents and Pesticides. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Croft, B. A. and Brown, A. W. A. (1975). Responses of arthropod natural enemies to pesticides. Annual Review of Entomology, 20, 285–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, S. J. and Aebischer, N. J. (1994). The effect of spatial scale of treatment with dimethoate on invertebrate population recovery in winter wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 263–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, S. J., Jepson, P. C., Wratten, S. D. and Sotherton, N. W. (1996). Spatial changes in invertebrate predation rate in winter wheat following treatment with dimethoate. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 78, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPA. (1998). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/630/R095/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC; EPA.
Everts, J. W., Aukema, B., Mullie, W. C.et al. (1991 a). Exposure of the ground-dwelling spider, Oedothorax apicatus (Blackwall) (Erigonidae) to spray and residues of deltamethrin. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 20, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everts, J. W., Willemsen, I., Stulp, M.et al. (1991 b). The toxic effect of deltamethrin on linyphiid and erigonid spiders in connection with ambient temperature, humidity and predation. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 20, 20–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, I. and Chambon, J. P. (1987). Faunistic inventory of cereal arthropods after flowering and incidence of insecticide treatments with deltamethrin, dimethoate and phosalone. Med. Fak. Landbouw. Rijksuniv. Gent., 52, 201–11.Google Scholar
Fuhrer, G. J., Morace, J. L., Johnson, H. M.et al. (2004). Water Quality in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1999–2000. US Geological Survey Circular 1237, Reston, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
Giddings, J., Brock, T., Heger, W.et al. (2002). Community Level Aquatic Systems Studies Interpretation Criteria (CLASSIC). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC); Pensacola, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
Gilliom, R. J., Barbash, J. E., Crawford, C. G.et al. (2006). The Quality of our Nation's Waters: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001. Circular 1291, Reston, VA: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
Gyldenkjaerne, S., Ravn, H. P. and Halling-Sorensen, B. (2000). The effect of dimethoate and cypermethrin on soil dwelling beetles under semi-field conditions. Chemosphere, 41, 1045–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyldenkaerne, S., Secher, J. M. and Nordbo, E. (1999). Ground deposit of pesticides in relation to the cereal canopy density. Pesticide Science, 55, 1210–6.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halley, J. M., Thomas, C. F. G. and Jepson, P. C. (1996). A model of the spatial dynamics of linyphiid spiders in farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, 471–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, M. R., Benrey, B., Coll, M.et al. (1995). Arthropod pest resurgence: an overview of potential mechanisms. Crop Protection, 14, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, R. (1985). Dynamics of Dutch beetle species during the 20th century. Journal of Biogeography, 12, 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. M. and Luff, M. L. (2000). The effects of agricultural practices on Carabidae in temperate agroecosystems. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 5, 109–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagers op Akkerhuis, G. A. J. M. and Hamers, T. H. M. (1992). Substrate-dependent bioavailability of deltamethrin for the epigeal spider Oedothorax apicatus. Pesticide Science, 36, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, P. C. (1988). Ecological characteristics and the susceptibility of non-target invertebrates to long-term pesticide side-effects. In Field Methods for the Study of the Environmental Effects of Pesticides. BCPC Monographs, 40, 191–200.Google Scholar
Jepson, P. C. (ed.) (1989). Pesticides and Non-Target Invertebrates. Wimborne, UK: Intercept.Google Scholar
Jepson, P. C. (1993 a). Ecological insights into risk analysis: the side-effects of pesticides as a case study. Science of the Total Environment(Supplement, 1993) Part 2. pp. 1547–66.Google Scholar
Jepson, P. C. (1993 b). Insects, Spiders and Mites. In Calow, P. (ed.), Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 299–325.Google Scholar
Jepson, P. C., Chaudry, A. G., Salt, D. W.et al. (1990). A reductionist approach towards short-term hazard analysis for terrestrial invertebrates exposed to pesticides. Functional Ecology, 4, 339–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, P. C., Efe, E. and Wiles, J. A. (1995). The toxicity of dimethoate to predatory Coleoptera: developing an approach to risk analysis for broad-spectrum pesticides. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 28, 500–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, P. C. and Sherratt, T. N. (1996). The dimensions of space and time in the assessment of ecotoxicological risks. In Baird, D. J., Maltby, L., Greig-Smith, P. W. and Douben, P. E. T. (eds.), Ecotoxicology: Ecological Dimensions. London, UK: Chapman Hall. pp. 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, P. C. and Thacker, J. R. M. (1990). Analysis of the spatial component of pesticide side-effects on non-target invertebrate populations and its relevance to hazard analysis. Functional Ecology, 4, 349–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. W. and Tabashnik, B. E. (1999). Enhanced biological control through pesticide selectivity. In Bellows, T. and Fisher, T. W. (eds.), Handbook of Biological Control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 297–318.Google Scholar
Kjaer, C. and Jepson, P. C. (1995). Estimation of direct pesticide exposure of a non-target weed dwelling chrysomelid beetle (Gastrophysa polygoni) in cereals. Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry, 14, 993–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Wilson, J. D., Bradbury, R. B. and Siriwadena, G. M. (1999). The second silent spring?Nature, 400, 611–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. A., Harwell, M. A., Kelly, J. R. and Kimball, K. D. (1988). Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches. New York: Spinger-Verlag.Google Scholar
Longley, M. and Jepson, P. C. (1997). Cereal aphid and parasitoid survival in a logarithmically diluted deltamethrin spray transect in winter wheat: field-based risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 16, 1761–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltby, L., Kedwards, T. J., Forbes, V. E. et al. (2001). Linking individual responses and population-level consequences. In Baird, J. and Allen-Burton, G. (eds.), Ecological Variability: Separating Natural from Anthropogenic Causes of Ecosystem Impairment. SETAC Press, USA. pp. 27–82.Google Scholar
Mineau, P. (2002). Estimating the probability of bird mortality from pesticide sprays on the basis of the field study record. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21, 1497–1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mineau, P. and Whiteside, M. (2006). Lethal risk to birds from insecticide use in the United States – a spatial and temporal analysis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 25, 1214–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moriarty, F. (1999). Ecotoxicology: The Study of Pollutants in Ecosystems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mullie, W. C. and Everts, J. W. (1992). Uptake and elimination of 14C deltamethrin by Oedothorax apicatus (Arachnida: Erigonidae) with respect to bioavailability. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 39, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osteen, C. and Livingston, M. (2006). Pest Management Practices. In Weibe, K. and Gollehon, N. (eds.), Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2006. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-16), Washington, DC, USA. Chapter 4.3. pp. 107–15.Google Scholar
Posthuma, L., Suter, G. W. and Traas, T. P. (2002). Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Ripper, W. E. (1956). Effects of pesticides on the balance of arthropod pest populations. Annual Review of Entomology, 1, 403–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, D. W. and Ford, M. G. (1984). The kinetics of insecticide action part III. The use of stochastic modeling to investigate the pickup of insecticides from ULV-treated surfaces by larvae of Spodoptera littoralis Boisd. Pesticide Science, 15, 382–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherratt, T. N. and Jepson, P. C. (1993). A metapopulation approach to modelling the long-term impact of pesticides on invertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30, 696–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, J. D., Jepson, P. C. and Mayer, D. F. (1995 a). Limitations to use of topical toxicity data for predictions of pesticide side-effects in the field. Journal of Economic Entomology, 88, 1081–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, J., Jepson, P. C. and Thomas, C. F. G. (1995 b). The effects of pesticides and spiders from laboratory to landscape. Reviews in Pesticide Toxicology, 3, 83–110.Google Scholar
Stark, J. D., Banks, J. E. and Vargas, R. (2004). How risky is risk assessment: The role that life history strategies play in susceptibility of species to stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 732–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suter, G. W., II, editor. (1993). Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. Florida, USA.Google Scholar
Taub, F. B. (ed.) (1997). Are ecological studies relevant to pesticide registration decisions?Ecological Applications, 7, 1086–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. F. G. and Jepson, P. C. (1997). Field-scale effects of farming practices on linyphiid populations in grass and cereals. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 84, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. F. G., Hol, E. H. A. and Everts, J. W. (1990). Modelling the diffusion component of dispersal during recovery of a population of linyphiid spiders from exposure to an insecticide. Functional Ecology, 4, 357–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. F. G., Brain, P. and Jepson, P. C. (2003). Dispersal distances of ballooning spiders: field measurements of aerial activity and a simulation model. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 912–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trumper, E. V. and Holt, J. (1998). Modelling pest population resurgence due to recolonization of fields following an insecticide application. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35, 273–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unal, G. and Jepson, P. C. (1991). The toxicity of aphicide residues to beneficial invertebrates in cereal crops. Annals of Applied Biology, 118, 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straalen, N. M. and Rijn, J. P. (1998). Ecotoxicological risk assessment of soil fauna recovery from pesticide application. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 154, 83–141.Google Scholar
Walker, A., et al. eds. (1995). Pesticide Movement to Water: Proceedings of a Symposium organised by the British Crop Protection Council, and the Society of Chemical Industry. Held at the University of Warwick, Coventry, UK on 3-5 April 1995. British Crop Protection Council, Alton, Hampshire, UK. 414pp.Google Scholar
Weyman, G. S., Jepson, P. C. and Sunderland, K. D. (1995). Do seasonal changes in numbers of aerially dispersing spiders reflect population density on the ground or variation in ballooning motivation?Oecologia, 101, 487–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiles, J. A. and Jepson, P. C. (1993 a). The dietary effects of deltamethrin upon Nebria brevicollis (F.) (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pesticide Science, 38, 329–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiles, J. A. and Jepson, P. C. (1993 b). An index of the intrinsic susceptibility of non-target invertebrates to residual deposits of pesticides. In Eijsackers, H., Heimbach, F. and Donker, M. (eds.), Ecotoxicology of Soil Organisms. Chelsea, USA: Lewis Publishers. pp. 287–302.Google Scholar
Wiles, J. A. and Jepson, P. C. (1994). Substrate mediated toxicity of deltamethrin residues to beneficial invertebrates: estimation of toxicity factors to aid risk assessment. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 27, 384–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiles, J. A. and Jepson, P. C. (1995). Dosage reduction to improve the selectivity of deltamethrin between aphids and coccinellids in cereals. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 76, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×