Understanding Pesticide Exposure Mitigation Effectiveness in Achieving Endangered Species Protection Goals

IF 2.3 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
R. Scott Teed*, Michael Winchell, Dwayne R. J. Moore, Bettina Miguez, Jody Stryker and Richard A. Brain, 
{"title":"Understanding Pesticide Exposure Mitigation Effectiveness in Achieving Endangered Species Protection Goals","authors":"R. Scott Teed*,&nbsp;Michael Winchell,&nbsp;Dwayne R. J. Moore,&nbsp;Bettina Miguez,&nbsp;Jody Stryker and Richard A. Brain,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acsagscitech.3c00573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >To protect the environment, pesticides often require mitigation measures to reduce losses via runoff, erosion, spray drift, and other routes of transport. Although many mitigation measures are generally effective at reducing pesticide losses from treated areas, it is often unknown whether they provide the desired protection level for the environment including threatened and endangered (“listed”) species. In this paper, we use the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender model (APEX) to quantify reductions in pesticide losses via runoff and erosion for common mitigation measures. These measures are currently being considered for the protection of listed species in the United States (i.e., vegetative buffers, contour cropping, planting of cover crops, and no-till practices). Analyses were conducted for two pesticides, atrazine and pendimethalin, for each of the two crop groups, corn, and vegetables/ground fruits. Separate analyses were conducted for different hydrologic regions, in which these crops are grown in the United States. Our results indicate that the effectiveness of the runoff mitigation measures, whether singly or in combination, varies with pesticide, crop, and region. We also found that there are diminishing returns as more mitigations are added to the analysis. Such factors need to be considered when developing suites of potential mandatory pesticide mitigations (i.e., pick lists) for the protection of threatened and endangered species in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":93846,"journal":{"name":"ACS agricultural science & technology","volume":"4 5","pages":"554–566"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acsagscitech.3c00573","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS agricultural science & technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsagscitech.3c00573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To protect the environment, pesticides often require mitigation measures to reduce losses via runoff, erosion, spray drift, and other routes of transport. Although many mitigation measures are generally effective at reducing pesticide losses from treated areas, it is often unknown whether they provide the desired protection level for the environment including threatened and endangered (“listed”) species. In this paper, we use the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender model (APEX) to quantify reductions in pesticide losses via runoff and erosion for common mitigation measures. These measures are currently being considered for the protection of listed species in the United States (i.e., vegetative buffers, contour cropping, planting of cover crops, and no-till practices). Analyses were conducted for two pesticides, atrazine and pendimethalin, for each of the two crop groups, corn, and vegetables/ground fruits. Separate analyses were conducted for different hydrologic regions, in which these crops are grown in the United States. Our results indicate that the effectiveness of the runoff mitigation measures, whether singly or in combination, varies with pesticide, crop, and region. We also found that there are diminishing returns as more mitigations are added to the analysis. Such factors need to be considered when developing suites of potential mandatory pesticide mitigations (i.e., pick lists) for the protection of threatened and endangered species in the United States.

Abstract Image

了解农药暴露缓解措施在实现濒危物种保护目标方面的效果
为了保护环境,杀虫剂通常需要采取减缓措施,以减少通过径流、侵蚀、喷洒漂移和其他 运输途径造成的损失。尽管许多减缓措施通常都能有效减少农药从施药区域的流失,但这些措施是否能为环境(包括受威胁和濒危("上市")物种)提供理想的保护水平,却往往不得而知。在本文中,我们使用农业政策/环境 eXtender 模型(APEX)来量化常见减缓措施通过径流和侵蚀减少的农药损失。这些措施目前正在美国被考虑用于保护列入清单的物种(即植被缓冲区、等高耕作、种植覆盖作物和免耕实践)。针对玉米和蔬菜/地面水果这两类作物,分别对阿特拉津和戊唑醇这两种农药进行了分析。针对美国种植这些作物的不同水文地区分别进行了分析。我们的研究结果表明,无论是单独使用还是组合使用,径流减缓措施的效果都因农药、作物和地区的不同而不同。我们还发现,随着分析中加入更多的减缓措施,收益也会递减。在为保护美国受威胁和濒危物种而制定一套潜在的强制性农药减缓措施(即选择清单)时,需要考虑这些因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信